Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order read for resuming debate on Question [17th October], That the Bill be now read the Third time.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

PETITION

Old-Age Pensioners (Television Licences)

Mr. Lipton: I beg leave to present a Petition which bears some 28,000 signatures. The Petition reads as follows:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of Lilian Ryan, married woman at 58 Chestnut Road, London, S.E.27, sheweth
That old-age pensioners in view of rising prices have barely sufficient on which to live. live.
Wherefore your Petitioner prays that old-age pensioners should be granted television licences at half the existing charge.
Wherefore your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Lorries (Limitation on Size)

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment

if he will now introduce, and enforce nationally, limits to length and load of large vehicles in relation to widths of streets and roads and the parking of such vehicles.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is discussing with local authorities the problems of heavy traffic; access of vehicles to particular streets must be a matter for local decisions.

Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend not agree that there is a need for a comprehensive review of the whole situation permitting 40-tonners to use certain motorways and yet forbidding 10-tonners to use certain streets in our towns and villages? This must be done nationally rather than locally, for the latter would make it too haphazard.

Mr. Griffiths: I accept that there is a problem in that a large vehicle can be a nuisance; but it is also a necessity, so what my right hon. Friend is seeking to do is to civilise the large vehicle by making it cleaner and quieter and forbidding it in some areas where it is too large to go. When we come to individual streets and lanes, I think this must essentially be a matter for local decision in the light of local circumstances.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Yes, but when will the Minister admit that all he is giving out at the moment are sops to the environmentalists? Is it not time we got down to planning a national lorry grid for heavy goods vehicles? When will there by some clearly depicted signs of no-go areas for heavy goods vehicles in towns?

Mr. Griffiths: I am afraid that the hon. Member is starting the new Session by being just as wrong as he was in the old one. By-passes are being provided for 89 historic towns; there is a £10 million programme for lorry parks; local authorities are being encouraged to provide them; the road programme is making provision by which large vehicles will be able to move more rapidly and with more adequate parking facilities available in local communities.

Dr. Stuttaford: When will my hon. Friend announce a decision on axle


weights? When he does announce his decision, would not that be the time to say whether we need lorry routes?

Mr. Griffiths: The matter of axle weights is being discussed by my right hon. Friend with our future partners in the European Community and certainly I will convey to him my hon. Friend's suggestion that that might be the appropriate moment at which to make a further statement on national route discrimination policy.

Mr. Crosland: Speaking as one not always a favourite figure with the environmentalist lobby, may I ask the Minister whether, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) said, he accepts that sometimes sops to the environmentalists are highly desirable? I know that he is concerned with the problem, but will he not accept that there is a growing disquiet in the country about both the length and weight of these heavy lorries, and that this is a disquiet which goes far beyond the confines of the narrow environmentalist lobby and concerns a very large section of the public?

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. There is no difference on this point. I am sure that he agrees that it must be the right policy to try to limit size and axle weight, and that power-weight ratios must also be looked at, but that at the same time it is equally necessary to see that, in order that our commerce can be benefited, the large vehicle has a proper route to use but is not encouraged to go into those city centres and narrow lanes where it has no right to be.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present position in regard to the negotiations with the European Economic Community in respect of the maximum permitted weight of lorries; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Ministers of the acceding States are being invited to consultations with the Six in Brussels on 6th and 7th November. My right hon. Friend will continue to press there our opposition to the weight limits proposed by the Six, particularly the 11-tonne axle limit.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the very widespread concern and apprehension throughout the country over this threat to our environment? Is it not essential that the efforts of his right hon. Friend and mine are successful in this regard and that the increasingly heavy lorries are not allowed to add to what paragraph 10 of the White Paper "Development and Compensation—Putting People First" very properly calls the
intolerable noise, vibration, smell, congestion and risks to person and property in  many towns and villages"?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has very much in mind the point that my right hon. and learned Friend has just mentioned, and his policy can be summed up simply. It is to civilise the heavy lorries.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there are already large numbers of heavy vehicles which exceed the present construction and use regulations for overall weights and axle loads? If the Minister cannot enforce the present axle rates, how will he be able to enforce future rates?

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman knows of any specific cases, which he can document, of lorries contravening the law I hope that he will bring them to the attention of the proper authority. Enforcement is not easy, but my Department, together with the police and local authorities, inspects a large number of vehicles, and the number is increasing each year.

Sir R. Thompson: Whatever the outcome of the present negotiations, would not my hon. Friend agree that the right place for these enormously heavy loads which shake our cities to pieces and make driving on motorways a nightmare is on the railways? Will he devise a system of licensing or charges which will make it much more advantageous to put these loads where they properly belong?

Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend is anxious to give to the railways all the support that makes sense in terms of a viable transport policy, but it is an inalienable fact that most goods that go by rail must first be taken to a railway station and at the other end must be removed by another motor vehicle. It is equally


a fact that many loads are not capable of being carried through some of the tunnels on our system. My right hon. Friend is anxious to assist the railways, and our record demonstrates that, but, at the same time, one must have some regard to the importance of the road haulage industry to the national economy.

Mr. Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why his right hon. Friend abandoned the concept of quantity licensing as early as July, 1970, if he is so anxious to divert traffic from road to rail?

Mr. Griffiths: Because it was a thoroughly bad concept which was doing no good to the road haulage industry and no good to the efficient distribution of goods and services.

Housing Finance Act

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have now indicated to him that they do not intend to implement the Housing Finance Act; and what action he now proposes to take.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list In the OFFICIAL REPORT the local authorities who have intimated to him that they will not implement the Housing Finance Act.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): Thirteen local authorities have informed me that they will not implement the Housing Finance Act, or at least certain parts of it. I will, with permission, circulate their names in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have already given notice to 11 of these authorities that my right hon. friend is considering making an order declaring them to be in default.

Mr. Rost: Do not these encouraging figures indicate that, despite the deliberate attacks by the Labour Party, designed to frustrate the implementation of the "Fair Rents Act" and to encourage local councils to disobey the law, the majority of councils have seen the sense, the fairness and the advantage of the Act, particularly in so far as it will help the poorer sections of the community to obtain rent rebates?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. But, in fairness to the Opposition, I remind my hon. Friend that the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) has always urged councils to obey the law and that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on one occasion said that he was in favour of that. I was pleased to see that Salford Council has been influenced to take the right decision, no doubt as a result of the intervention of the hon. Member for Salford, East.

Mr. Lipton: Since when and by whose authority has the Housing Finance Act been designated the "Fair Rents Act"? How much money is being spent to advertise this bit of spuriously titled legislation?

Mr. Amery: There is a Question later on the Order Paper about the advertising, so perhaps I would be out of order to answer it now. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate better than most people, the public determine these things and people have called it "the Fair Rents Act".

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the total of 13 include the town council of Carnforth, which has now agreed to implement the Act, partly because the councillors are law-abiding citizens and partly because they do not wish to deprive the rent payers, particularly pensioners and others in need, of the generous rebate provisions of the Act?

Mr. Amery: I had already appreciated that they were implementing it.

Mr. William Hamilton: Since the Government are anxious to have a prices and incomes policy and want price increases to be limited to 4 per cent., or at most 5 per cent., a year, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to ensure that no local authority increases rents in any one year by more than 5 per cent.?

Mr. Amery: One of the considerations which most concerns the Government, the CBI and the TUC is the need to help the lower-paid workers, and the rebate and allowances provisions of the Act make a direct contribution to this without in any way modifying the general wage structure.
Following is the information:
The local authorities listed below have informed the Secretary of State of their


intention not to implement all or parts of the Housing Finance Act:

Barrow-in-Furness County Borough Council.
Carlisle County Borough Council.
Doncaster County Borough Council.
Walsall County Borough Council.
West Bromwich County Borough Council.
Camden London Borough Council.
Eccles Borough Council.
Bedworth Urban District Council.
Clay Cross Urban District Council.
Conisbrough Urban District Council.
Halstead Urban District Council.
Newton-le-Willows Urban District Council.
Skelmersdale and Holland Urban District Council.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state approximately how many tenants' rents he estimates he will increase by an average of a further 50p next April under the Housing Finance Act, and how many additional tenants' rents by a similar sum next October; and if, in view of the rise in the cost of living involved, he will now withdraw the requirement to impose these rent increases.

Mr. Amery: It is not possible to make such estimates. I have no plans to act on the lines suggested in the second half of the Question, more particularly in view of the fact that the rebates and allowances provided under the Act help to stabilise the cost of living for the lower paid.

Mr. Allaun: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House of Commons Library staff have been informed that these estimates are readily available in his office? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as these are unnecessary and deliberate increases in the cost of living he should listen to the call of the TUC to suspend all these further rent increases next year?

Mr. Amery: I have, as I always do, read with attention the hon. Gentleman's comments in public on these matters. He seems to have disregarded the fact that a number of tenants will have reached fair rents before next April or October and will not be called upon to pay anything like a 50p increase, and some no increase at all.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this arrangement is causing a great deal of distress to many people? Will he at least deny the alarming and irresponsible rumour that is per-

colating around Merseyside that the Government will eventually allocate the tenancy of a house to the highest wage earner in that house? Will he deny that categorically now?

Mr. Amery: The allocation of council houses is entirely a matter for the local authority.

Humber Bridge

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of construction of the Humber Bridge and approach roads.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): Construction of the bridge and its approach roads is the responsibility of the Humber Bridge Board. I understand that progress is up to schedule which is to complete the bridge by 1976.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by that date there will be no northern exit from the bridge because the Beverley south-west by-pass will not be completed until 18 months later? There will also be no north-south exit because the Department has decided that this road should be designated as a county road, which cannot be completed until the 1980s.

Mr. Page: The northern approach road to the bridge will connect directly with the trunk road A63, and that will be improved by the time the bridge opens. The southern approach road will be linked to a new east-west route M180, leading to the M18 at Thorne, by the time the bridge opens.

Social Play Centres

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representation he has received from London borough councils regarding a grant from his Department towards the cost of social play centres on local authority housing estates; and what replies he has sent.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): None, Sir.

Mr. Cox: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he fully aware of


the problems which exist in large housing estates in London and other parts of the country which unfortunately do not have either social or recreational facilities? I am told on inquiry that this is because of the cost involved in the overall cost of a housing project. Is it not possible for the Department seriously to consider making grants available, because such facilities would be a great asset to communities which unfortunately lack them?

Mr. Eyre: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's views about the nature of the problem. He will be happy to know, with regard to play provision on local authority housing estates, that my Department recently issued recommended standards for the provision of unsupervised but equipped play space, and subsidy is payable on the cost of providing such spaces.

House Prices

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the figures for average house price increases since 18th June, 1970, both for newly-built and second-hand dwellings.

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment by what percentage the cost of an average house is estimated to have risen since the month of June, 1970.

Mr. Amery: The average price of new private dwellings mortgaged with building societies was 37 per cent. higher in the second quarter of 1972 than in the second quarter of 1970. The corresponding increase for second-hand dwellings was 45 per cent.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of those figures. Is not he aware that this is Government-sponsored inflation, for which the Housing Finance Act is primarily responsible? What does he intend to do about the property speculators, who are printing their own money? What good is a £2 wage rise when the average semi-detached house is rising in cost by as much as £1,000 a year?

Mr. Amery: When the hon. Gentleman says that we should be ashamed of the figures, he should bear in mind that, in the first half of 1972 as compared with the first half of 1970—the last six months of

the Labour Government—31 per cent. more mortgages were given to first-time purchasers, 30 per cent. more borrowers were under the age of 25 and over 40 per cent. more mortgages went to people with up to the average manual worker's wage earnings. What has happened is that there has been an increase in the money in people's pockets and an increase in the credit facilities available, for which this Government, far from being ashamed, can take credit.

Mr. Janner: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous hardship that is being caused to ordinary People, particularly the young married couples, by the scandalous increase in housing prices? Is not he prepared in the circumstances to stimulate and subsidise local council building so that people who need homes will get them?

Mr. Amery: The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that, when I point out that 31 per cent. more mortgages went to first-time purchasers, 30 per cent. more borrowers were under the age of 25 and over 40 per cent. more mortgages went to people with up to the average manual worker's earnings, it does not quite reflect the frustration which he has expressed. One thing I am keen to do is to encourage the sale of council houses, and this can be done at a 20 per cent. discount and will tend to stabilise the market at the lower end. What is significant is that the cost of second-hand houses has risen more than the cost of new houses, reflecting an increase in demand at the lower end of the scale.

Mr. Farr: What will be the effect on the prices of new houses of the recent award to the building workers?

Mr. Amery: It will have some effect, but I think that the prices reflect rather more the extent and buoyancy of the demand than the cost of either materials or labour.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does not this fantastic increase in house prices put them far beyond the reach of most wage earners? Does it not stress the need to build more council houses instead of cutting down the council house-building programme, which is what the Government's policies have resulted in?

Mr. Amery: The figures I have just quoted show that far more people are


buying their own houses and that far more people at the lower end of the income scale are buying houses than during the last six months of the Labour Government. But this is still not good enough and I want to see more done. The only way to achieve that is to increase the supply of houses in relation to demand, and in the first six months of this year 43 per cent. more private houses were started than in the first six months of 1970.

Mr. Idris Owen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not constructional costs which have created this fantastic increase in the price of houses as much as land acquisition prices?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. I think my hon. Friend is on to a good point there. But I draw his attention to the fact that 18 per cent. more council houses have gone out to tender than in the last six months of the Labour Government.

Archaeology

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much extra money has now been allocated to archaeology in the light of his latest policy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amery: I have provided a further £125,000 in England this year for emergency excavations in advance of development. This is nearly half as much again as the original allocation and the total is more than twice that for last year. I am glad to say that in consequence no work on important archaeological sites has to my knowledge been prejudiced by lack of finance.

Mr. Dalyell: Has this £125,000 been found from central Government sources, or is it a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul and doing it at the expense of excavation and consolidation of guardianship monuments?

Mr. Amery: I know how well informed the hon. Gentleman is on these matters. To the best of my knowledge it comes from central funds.

Dr. Stuttaford: How much archaeological experiment was carried out in New Palace Yard before the builders started excavating it?

Mr. Amery: I should like notice of a question as to the exact degree, but this point was uppermost in our minds. Indeed, I specifically asked that the greatest care should be taken not only to avoid any damage to local structures but to ensure that interesting evidence or discoveries would be recorded or preserved.

M55 (Preston Bypass)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it is still his intention that work shall start on the M55 Preston northern bypass motorway early in 1973.

Mr. Graham Page: Certain advance works started last month. The main works should be started next summer, which is earlier than previously forecast.

Mr. Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply is a very welcome addition to the progress which has been made on this project over the last two years? Will he bear in mind that it is more than 10 years since the county surveyor of Lancashire declared that this was the most important road project in the area? The people of Lancashire will be hoping that my right hon. Friend can keep it up to schedule.

Mr. Page: Last November, in previous Questions, my hon. Friend pressed me to get this road started earlier. I am happy to say that we have managed to bring it forward six months from schedule.

Miss Holt: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) in what he says about how welcome is my right hon. Friend's statement. However, I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend would expedite the building of the motorway to an earlier date, if that is at all possible. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister for Transport Industries is proposing to raise the speed limit on the Blackpool Road within the Preston area to 40 miles an hour? This is a highly residential area in which a number of people have been killed. It is a most dangerous road with a tremendous amount of traffic and it is vital that the motorway should be started at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Page: Yes, Sir. As I drive on that road frequently, I know its dangers.
We have sought in every way to advance the contract. We are erecting a bridge over the main London to Glasgow railway line and the statutory undertakers are diverting all the service pipes and wires that they can before the main contract.

Housing Statistics

Mr. Leonard: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why publication of the quarterly periodical, Housing Statistics, ceased with issue No. 24 for February, 1972; and in what form he intends to publish the statistics contained therein in the future.

Mr. Eyre: Both Housing Statistics and the Monthly Bulletin of Construction Statistics have been superseded by a new quarterly publication, Housing and Construction Statistics, the first issue of which appeared on 7th September. Almost all the data previously included in the separate publications will appear in either quarterly or annual tables in Housing and Construction Statistics.

Mr. Leonard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the first volume of the new bulletin he mentioned is considerably thinner than its predecessor, although it allegedly covers a wider range? Many of the tables previously included—for example, several dealing with the details of improvement grants and unfit houses—are not now included, and some of the tables continued now give less information than in the past, since they do not take so early a base year as previously. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that future issues give much wider details than the first issue?

Mr. Eyre: I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman said but I hope he will allow this new publication to run for a year because the aim is to include the major series which are available on a quarterly basis, and nearly all the other statistics which were in Housing Statistics, including those which appeared annually, will be given in supplementary tables once a year. There is advantage in avoiding duplication, including a reduction in the price from £4 10s. for the previous publication to £3·55p for the new one.

Mr. Paget: Will these statistics deal with prices? We have heard such very remarkable suggestions about a 37 per

cent. increase. Speaking as a landlord and property owner, I can say that in the last eight months—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time, not information time.

Mr. Paget: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the last six months I have seen the price of houses at least double, and that of building sites go up by about 200 per cent.?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. and learned Gentleman can be assured that all previous statistics of that kind will be represented in the new publication.

Peak District National Park (Motorway)

Mr. Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether the Countryside Commission and Peak Park Planning Board have been consulted in respect of the construction of the Sheffield to Manchester motorway; and what advice they have given;
(2) what plans by his Department exist for the construction of the Sheffield to Manchester motorway through the Peak District National Park; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Graham Page: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) on 9th August.—[Vol. 842, c. 437–9.]

Mr. Winterton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I appreciate the important commercial aspects of the proposed road, but does he not feel that those aspects have overidden the amenity interests? Furthermore, is he aware of the deep feelings, both locally and nationally, about the proposed route?

Mr. Page: Yes, indeed; we have had full discussions with the Peak Park Planning Board and with the Countryside Commission. Although I am well aware that they would prefer the road not to go through the national park, they think that this is the best route. I believe that great benefits are to be obtained from this route because it will relieve the other roads in the park and will concentrate traffic on one fairly sunken road through the nine miles of park in the best place at which we can landscape it.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the M62 is too far away from Sheffield, that the heavy traffic which would go on the M62 still goes on the old roads, and that many of those roads are now more congested than they were and are certainly far more dangerous? Will he try to speed up the Sheffield-Manchester motorway?

Mr. Page: We must site the road carefully to see that we get the best landscape and the best environmental setting The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is need for this road. The M62 does not take sufficient of the traffic for this connection.

Mr. Osborn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of those who live in the Peak Park will welcome the fact that this road is to go north of the Peak Park and not through the middle, namely on a Chesterfield-Bakewell-Peak Forest route, which was at one time considered? Will he give some indication about the degree of consideration given to that route, bearing in mind that it would have gone through the middle of the Peak Park near to the place in which I happen to live?

Mr. Page: I can assure my hon. Friend that the fact he lives on that route did not influence us. We considered a number of routes. The one that was chosen through the Longdendale Valley contains major road and rail routes, a reservoir and a line of pylons. I think that we can concentrate traffic within an area which will cause less damage to the park.

Mr. Mulley: I endorse the decision to construct a road on this route and welcome the Minister's statement—a statement which is not widely appreciated—that it will add to the amenity of the park area and will take away traffic from the lesser roads. Could the right hon. Gentleman give the date when he intends to hold a public inquiry and to come to a firm decision on the matter, because in the interim period some of the arguments have gone far away from the point at issue.

Mr. Page: I cannot give that information today, but if the right hon. Gentleman tables a Question on this matter I shall see whether I can answer it.

A38 (Tideford and Landrake)

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he hopes to make known the results of the pedestrian and vehicle surveys to be undertaken at Tideford and Landrake on the A38 trunk road; and if he will make an interim statement.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The counts show that a crossing facility is not justified at Landrake, but we are proposing a road widening at Tideford which will allow for pedestrian refuges.

Mr. Hicks: Since the Minister has just made this decision, and bearing in mind that both villages are divided by a main trunk road, is the Minister aware that. whatever may be his assessment of the official statistics, most local people feel that some form of controlled crossing should be installed rather than adopt the system which the Minister proposes and in the case of Landrake to do nothing at all.

Mr. Griffiths: The advantages of having nationally consistent criteria are accepted on all sides of the House. In respect of Landrake these are less than 50 per cent. satisfied, but in respect of Tideford I hope that road widening and pedestrian refuges can be put in by the summer.

Pollution

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that local authorities have sufficient powers under the planning Acts to deal with problems of pollution; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): The purpose of the planning Acts is to secure the proper use of land, but I am satisfied that local authorities can use them effectively to avoid creating new problems of pollution. I shall shortly be issuing advice to local authorities about the use of planning powers in relation to both noise and clean air.

Mr. Eadie: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many local authorities have contacted him on this matter? Will he agree that many citizens


are concerned about the implementation of existing planning Acts and are also concerned that not enough has been done to carry through the battle against pollution?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that more could be done. Certainly my Department in its regional offices is very much involved with local authorities in trying to show them the best way to use planning powers to reduce pollution in every form.

Mr. Bob Brown: Will the Secretary of State accept that there is already legislation to deal with one of the worst forms of pollution—namely that of litter? Will he consider having words with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about cracking down on the whole problem of litter and bringing some prosecutions, attended by full publicity lest we have the reputation of becoming the filthiest nation in the world?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter and I agree with what he said. I have had talks with the Home Secretary on this topic. The "Keep Britain Tidy" campaign is doing more at present than it has ever done before and I hope that nationally we can improve substantially the present situation.

Council House Rents

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest available estimate of the average increase in the rents of council dwellings which will occur during the current financial year.

Mr. Amery: It is difficult to make a precise estimate of the increase in the average rent in the current year, since the rents payable will depend on the rebates granted to tenants. However, our first broad assessment of the average increase in rent likely to be paid by all council tenants in 1972–73 is about 35p.

Mr. Hardy: I asked the hon. Gentleman for the percentage figure. However, does he not agree that the recent estimates do not appear to take account of the hundreds of thousands of tenants who in recent weeks have begun to pay rents which are 50 per cent. higher than they were before the Housing Finance Act

became law? Will he also agree that this is likely to mean that the Prime Minister's estimate, given to the House on 25th July, is likely to prove to be grossly and wildly innacurate? May we have a guarantee that when precise information is available a ministerial statement will be made to the House, accompanied by the apology which appears to be due?

Mr. Amery: I shall be very surprised if there were any grounds for apology. I have sought to answer the Question to the best of my ability. I believe that it tallies closely with the Prime Minister's answer, which referred to the period from July this year to July next year; whereas the hon. Gentleman's Question applies to the current financial year. I feel he will find the reply to be accurate, and of course, we shall keep the House informed about developments.

Mr. Crosland: We shall keep this subject alive and pursue the right hon. Gentleman on it. Is it not now becoming hard to reconcile the various figures which have been given? Is it not the case that the figure of 35p relates to the average level of rebated rents—in other words, rebates are taken into account? Is it not based on the highly unlikely assumption that there will be a 100 per cent. take-up of rebates?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir; it is based on the best assumptions we have been able to make. It is concerned with rebated rents, taking account of the experience of the 60 per cent. of local authorities which have given rebates. We shall, of course, keep the House informed on the figures. It is difficult to be precise, but I have tried to give the best information I can.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does not the Minister admit that, even where increases of less than £1 have been agreed this October, this does not prevent the rent scrutiny boards from imposing far higher increases next year? Secondly, may I correct an untrue statement made by the Minister? I have never on any occasion asked councillors to impose rent increases, and I ask the Minister to withdraw this untrue statement.

Mr. Amery: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I thought I had heard him say in Committee—I have


not the HANSARD reference before me at the moment—that he had always advocated keeping the law.

Mr. Allaun: No.

Mr. Amery: I apologise humbly to the hon. Gentleman if I accused him of such an intolerable action as advising people to observe the law. I thought he had said that. Perhaps what he said was that he had never advised people to break the law. I will withdraw that if it is unfair —[Interruption.] In that case, I withdraw Her Majesty's Government's congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on having advised Salford to take the right course.

Southern Distribution Road (Norwich)

Dr. Stuttaford: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a statement on his recent discussions with Norwich City Council on the proposed southern distribution road.

Mr. Graham Page: Discussions and consultations have been held with Norwich City Council in the course of the study into the possible need and corridor for a southern bypass of the town. The study is being carried out by Norfolk County Council on behalf of the Department. It is proceeding as planned and should be completed during this year.

Dr. Stuttaford: Will the right hon. Gentleman take particular note of the views expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) when he paid an official visit to the city this month to hear about our road problems? We feel that this road is the answer to the preservation of the city. We in Norwich and Norfolk also feel that we are suffering from too many study groups and committees and that there are not enough road workers actually doing the work.

Mr. Page: We are getting on with this study and hope to have the results by the end of the year. In the meantime, the proposals for Thorpe Road, which I know are a matter of much concern locally, have been suspended and the transportation study for the area will be ready by 1973, but it will be affected by the results of this study in terms of a bypass road.

Council Houses (Sale)

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now take steps to encourage local authorities to build council houses for sale to residents of their areas, particularly to young couples with established local connections.

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. I consider in principle it is the task of the private developer to build for owner-occupation, but I am always prepared to look sympathetically at any proposal by a housing authority to building for sale where a particular demand would not otherwise be met.

Miss Fookes: Will my right hon. Friend actively encourage councils to take such a course, bearing in mind his own admission that there is an increasing demand for these houses and the fact that this would be one way of allowing young couples to find a house?

Mr. Amery: I hoped that my answer would be encouraging. There are a number of local authorities in London and outside it which have put up schemes. We are looking at them sympathetically and I hope that a number will be approved in future.

Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the matter further and seek to obtain a massive expansion in local authority building of all kinds, where there is need? Is he aware that figures for housing completions currently, both local authority and private, are lower than at the time when the Conservative Government took office? Is he particularly aware that in the local authorities in England and Wales there has been a reduction from the figure of 15,000 completions per month at the time when this Government took office to a figure of 7,400 completions?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman, with his long experience of local government, will know that all these things take time to get on the move. The most encouraging figure is that showing that the tenders for council-house building in the first six months of the year were 18 per cent. higher than in the last six months in office of the Government which the hon. Gentleman adorned.

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister not appreciate that houses built by councils always take longer to construct? Would it not be better to make a survey of land owned by local authorities and release it to private builders to get on with the job?

Mr. Amery: I believe that it is the function of private developers to undertake building for sale. There are cases—and at present there are many—when the private developer is not prepared to take on this work. In that case I do not see why local authorities in appropriate conditions should not build for sale.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the Minister aware that there are important local authorities which last year did not build one single council house? Is he also aware that the county borough of Bootle is to amalgamate with the county borough of Southport and will he have a word with these authorities to remind them of their social responsibilities in respect of this whole new social enclave which is to be created?

Mr. Amery: I will look into that point. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a good deal is being done throughout the country by local authorities of very different political persuasions, not only in building council houses but also in slum clearance.

Compulsory Purchase (Compensation)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he can make of the date when legislation will be introduced to up-date and amend the compulsory purchase compensation code.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet reached conclusions about compensation for owners of property deleteriously affected by urban motorways.

Mr. Graham Page: I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer my right hon. Friend gave on 17th October to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) in which he announced the publication of the Government's White Paper "Development and Compensation—Putting People First". I hope to introduce legislation shortly.

Mr. McCrindle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a widespread welcome for any improvement in the compensation code following compulsory purchase? Does he further accept that in these inflationary conditions the difference between market and replacement value has been considerable and that any opportunity of bridging the gap in the new legislation will be warmly welcomed?

Mr. Page: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The White Paper and the policy stated therein sticks to market value as the fairest compensation. My hon. Friend will also notice that it gives a payment for home loss in addition to market value where a tenant or owner-occupier has been in occupation for seven years.

Mr. Cant: Speaking not only as a Member of Parliament but as chairman of a planning council, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is true that the great problem in cases where urban motorways are going through cities is the determination of market value? However much one may appreciate the things that have been done in this White Paper, the parsimony of both city estate valuers and district valuers of the Inland Revenue in many cases brings grave injustice to many people who have purchased their homes and are offered derisory payments in return. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make the interest-only mortgages a statutory obligation upon authorities and, in cases of compulsory purchase in reverse, make it possible for home loss payment to be made?

Mr. Page: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the district valuer's valuation. The district valuer values on the basis of the market value of the property. It may be an old property and therefore difficult to get reinstatement of that amount. That is why we put provisions in the White Paper for interest-only mortgages and for assistance to those who wish to rehabilitate themselves after having to sell an old house which is not worth very much on the market. I do not think we could have added any value to the normal market value. The normal market value is honestly calculated by the district valuer.

Non-Registered Ports

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet received the results of the survey carried out at his request by the National Ports Council into the rôle of non-registered ports; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Eyre: My right hon. Friend has asked the Council to report by the end of October. I understand there has been a good response to its fact-finding inquiries.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he assure the House that the Government will have no truck whatsoever with the sort of threats uttered on television by Lord Aldington-Jones that the non-registered ports would either be forced into registration or driven out of existence, which would come to the same thing?

Mr. Eyre: Following the Aldington-Jones Report, it was important to establish the facts about the rôle of small ports and wharves in relation to that of larger ports. The Government cannot prejudge the result of the survey which is taking place, but I am sure the National Ports Council will carefully consider all the information and views put before it. The Government have no preconceived ideas about restricting the rôle of the smaller ports and wharves.

Mr. Mulley: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that this survey will be published and that the House will hear about it as early as the Press, which is not always the case with matters coming from his Department? Will the hon. Gentleman also totally ignore the advice given to him by his hon. Friend, unless he wants an out-and-out confrontation with the whole dock industry?

Mr. Eyre: The report will certainly be published. The Government cannot prejudge the nature of the report.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend remember that I am behind my Scottish Friend the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)? Would it not be a good idea for the Minister to let Lord Aldington know exactly what people like me think?

Mr. Eyre: I have always found that the hon. Lady has been absolutely—

Dame Irene Ward: I am an hon. Friend.

Mr. Eyre: I have always found that my hon. Friend, the hon. Lady, has been entirely capable of making anyone aware of her opinion. I should stress that the National Ports Council is the appropriate statutory body to advise and to consider all these complex issues.

Mr. Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, contrary to the views expressed by the hon. Member for South Angus, the problem is much greater and more complex than he would have us believe? In places like Grangemouth in my constituency and in Greenock on the West of Scotland, where vast amounts of public money are being spent, ports are being undermined by small non-registered ports like Montrose and other places. The Minister should take this into consideration in his deliberations.

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the survey is taking place with the aim of establishing all the relevant facts.

Desalination

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment by what date he expects that the first full-scale plant for the desalination of salt water will be operating in Great Britain.

Mr. Peter Walker: In the light of the latest information, it seems unlikely that desalination will make any substantial contribution to water resources in the immediate future, although there may be some desalting applications and also some contribution to purification of river water and processing of effluent. I am anxious to examine any developments in this sphere and if viable to give them every encouragement.

Mr. Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a projected shortage of water in the South-East by the 1980s and that the construction of reservoirs is becoming more difficult for geographic and environmental reasons? Will he tell the House what happened to the Ipswich desalination plant which was temporarily


postponed a year or so ago and of which we have heard no more?

Mr. Walker: The Government offered to pay the majority of the money required for that project, but the private sector involved was unwilling in the end to put in any money whatsoever. As a result, our judgment was that it was right to obtain from them the technical information they had available, which may be of use at a later stage, and to try to obtain some European collaboration in this sphere.

Mr. Hooson: Is it correct that research in many countries shows that the escalating costs of desalination virtually rule it out for this century?

Mr. Walker: Certainly my Department is trying to maintain contact with all developers in this sphere world-wide. We hope there may be a breakthrough, but at the moment there is no indication that there will be.

M1 (Computer-Controlled Signalling System)

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the computer-controlled signalling system to be in operation on the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire sections of the M1; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Graham Page: The computer is now being installed at Scratchwood and I expect the signalling system to he available for operation in the Metropolitan and Hertfordshire police areas by the end of the year. The section in Bedfordshire is in our forward programme and I am unable at present to give a date for its completion.

Mr. Madel: In view of yet another delay in getting this system operational in Bedfordshire and the accidents which occurred on the M1 during last winter, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a winter speed limit or other safety measures so that the M1 in Bedfordshire can be made safer this winter In the absence of this lighting system which was promised for this winter?

Mr. Page: I will certainly look into that. The record of installing this system is not too bad. By the time we have installed it on the 21 miles between the

Five Ways interchange and the Pepper-stock interchange and brought it into operation, the total mileage of motorway so equipped will be 196, and a further 290 miles will be commissioned in 1973.

Rent Rebates (War Pensions)

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have responded to his circular 74/72 by increasing the disregard of war pensions from £2 to £3 for rent rebate purposes; how many have reduced the disregard which obtained before the passing of the Housing (Finance) Act; how many have made no change; and if he will name those authorities who have reduced the disregard.

Mr. Amery: I regret that this information is not yet available.

Mr. Redmond: Whilst accepting that is possibly the position, may I ask my right hon. Friend to keep the matter under careful review? Is it not absolutely appalling to think that some local authorities will reduce the disregard for war pensioners when they have been guided by the Government to keep the figure at £3?

Mr. Skinner: They have not.

Mr. Amery: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's view. Our Circular 74/72 instances war disability pensions as one of the aspects of the national scheme where authorities may wish to exercise their discretion to be more generous. It is suggested that local authorities which have hitherto disregarded more than £2 may wish to use this power to continue with their former practice. They have authority to disregard the whole of these provisions.

Mr. Skinner: Why did not the circular make reference also to other disregards—namely, special hardship and disability allowances—that have been incurred as a result of industrial accidents? Why should there be a distinction between the two? Why does not the Minister be a little more honest in his answer to his hon. Friend and make it clear that there is a limit to how far local authorities can go in using their discretion because they come up against the financial barrier that he imposed in the Act?

Mr. Amery: I am always prepared to look at suggestions and to discuss any


other pensions which might be disregarded, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to decry the priority which should be given to war disability.

Local Government Act (Guidance Circulars)

Mr. Oakes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now issue a circular to local authorities advising on the operation of Section 100 of the Local Government Act.

Mr. Graham Page: I will be issuing such a circular as soon as the necessary urgent consultations have been completed.

Mr. Oakes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as long ago as early July a promise was given by his right hon. Friend that such guidance would be given? Is he also aware of the confusion, amounting to chaos, between local authorities about who will do what after 1st April, 1974? Will he issue this circular for their guidance immediately?

Mr. Page: I appreciate the urgency of this matter, and the Government's approach to it will be set out in the consultation paper to be issued this month, but we had to wait until another place had decided exactly what the contents of the Bill would be. I cannot promise the Freeman of Hale that it will give him guidance on how to take over Speke Airport.

Mr. Trew: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that there are adequate safeguards to ensure that county councils honour their agreements under agency arrangements in future years?

Mr. Page: There is a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend if there is an irreconcilable dispute between the county and the district.

Pedestrian Crossings (Criteria)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in view of the need to have traffic lights, subways or pedestrian crossings sited where dangers to the community exist, he will reconsider the criteria in operation for agreeing for instance to pedestrian crossings.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The criteria already take into account accidents and risks to pedestrians; but if my hon. Friend has a particular instance in mind I will of course be very happy to look at it.

Dame Irene Ward: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that statement. I hope he will accept it when I say that I regard the present system as old-fashioned and am glad to know that some progress is being made. There are many examples in the Counties of Northumberland and Durham, so perhaps my hon. Friend will take a much more forward-looking and modern view, bearing in mind that the aim of this Government is modernisation.

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

Council Flats (Hampstead)

Mr. Jay: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list his reasons for rejecting the proposal of the London Borough of Camden to erect council flats in Branch Hill, Hampstead.

Mr. Eyre: Because the zoned density for development of this site produces unacceptably high plot costs per dwelling.

Mr. Jay: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider this, since his own working party has been urging councils to look for more land, and since this site came into the council's ownership at a low price and has been unused for years?

Mr. Eyre: There are high plot costs in this case, approaching £16,000 per site, and this high cost is directly related to the low density. I am not satisfied that other less costly sites are not available to enable the council to pursue its housing programme.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that this site is in Hampstead and not in Battersea? Secondly, is he aware that this site was acquired for addition to Hampstead Heath? Thirdly, is he aware that the former Labour leader of the Camden Council stated categorically in the Press, and never withdrew the statement, that no municipal housing would be put on this site?

Mr. Eyre: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning those factors.

Mr. Crosland: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about zone densities and plot costs in this case, and generally about the environment, will he or his right hon. Friend agree to make a brief statement after Questions on the contribution to the environment that will be made by the proposed new Department of the Environment office block, twice the size of Centre Point, at the Elephant and Castle?

Mr. Eyre: Relating the right hon. Gentleman's question to the Question on the Order Paper, the zone density here is 30 persons per acre, and it is for the borough, at any rate in the first instance, to take steps to secure an alteration in that.

Drivers' Hours Regulations

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what procedures are operated by his Department to enforce drivers' hours regulations observance by heavy goods vehicle drivers hired through private employment agencies.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The same as for other lorry drivers—checks on the road and at operating bases.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the existence of firms like Driver Hire and Manpower, which are trying to do for the lorry driver what Brook Street Bureau and Alfred Marks have done for the shorthand-typist? How will he make sure that they do not fiddle their log sheets, and how will he make sure that these people are sticking to the hours when he has to admit that many of them are doing other jobs apart from lorry driving?

Mr. Griffiths: About 100,000 records are checked annually. As regards Manpower, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that we brought a successful prosecution.

UGANDA (ASIANS)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement to bring the House up to date with

the developments arising from President Amin's decision to expel Asians from Uganda.
As the House will be aware, Her Majesty's Government accepted their legal and moral responsibility to allow holders of United Kingdom passports to come to this country in the special circumstances created by President Amin's unjust and inhumane action. At the same time, Her Majesty's Government made intense efforts to enlist the help of the international community in offering to the Ugandan refugees a wide choice of destinations, and, as a result of these efforts, 29 Governments expressed their willingness to help. I would like to give the House a few examples.
Canada imediately offered to receive 6,000 refugees—both United Kingdom passport holders and Stateless people. So far, about 2,000 have been granted Canadian entry permits.
The Government of India have agreed that United Kingdom passport holders may go there in the first instance. Already, 2,500 have taken advantage of that option.
Pakistan also responded generously, and 1,000 have so far chosen to go there.
The signs are that a substantial further number may go to one or the other of those countries.
Other countries that are taking substantial numbers of United Kingdom passport holders or Stateless persons, or both, include the United States, West Germany, Malawi, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and Austria. A number of Latin American countries have made helpful offers, and the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration is co-ordinating arrangements for putting these into effect.
I want to emphasise that this international co-operation was possible only because the world saw Her Majesty's Government immediately and unequivocally accepting their responsibilities in this matter. The result is that it now appears that the number of Ugandan Asians holding our passports who will need or wish to settle here is likely to be well under half the figure of 50,000 to 60,000 first mentioned.
The position to date is as follows. Our High Commission in Kampala has issued entry certificates to about 23,500


people, and of these some 5,000 are likely to go direct to third countries. The High Commission is now issuing entry certificates to wives and dependants who hold United Kingdom passports in their own right. It is also reviewing the cases of a small number of families whose applications for passports were at first questioned but some of whom, we believe, may in fact be entitled to them because they failed effectively to renounce our citizenship after independence. My earlier estimate of the total number of people now likely to settle here takes account of these last two categories.
I want to say at this point that Her Majesty's Government have from the beginning made clear that they do not accept responsibility for those who have been rendered Stateless by General Amin's decree. Responsibility for the Stateless refugees rests in the first place on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who is actively engaged in international discussions about their reception and resettlement.
Turning to the arrangements within this country for reception and resettlement of United Kingdom passport holders, the position at the weekend was that nearly 15,000 refugees had been admitted to the United Kingdom. Of these, 8,500 were still being given shelter by the Uganda Resettlement Board in 11 resettlement centres. I am satisfied that the Board will be able to provide adequate temporary shelter in these and other centres for the increasing proportion among later arrivals who are likely to need it.
The Board's other—longer-term but equally important—task is to resettle the refugees in the community at large and help them find homes and jobs. The Board now has special resettlement teams at each centre which are actively engaged in this task. This is inevitably a slow process, but, having coped successfully with the reception of the refugees, the Board will now increasingly concentrate on the task of resettlement, and is being provided with the additional resources to do this effectively.
The Board is conscious of the need to persuade, but it cannot, of course, direct, refugees away from areas where social facilities such as housing and schools are already under strain. If has been autho-

rised to make special and generous grants towards relevant expenditure by local authorities.
I am not complacent about what has been achieved; nor about the problems that still confront us. But I am sure that the House will agree that an enormous amount has been achieved in receiving and beginning to resettle these refugees. This reflects credit on the Resettlement Board and its staff and on the local authorities with which it is working so closely. It reflects credit, too, on the hundreds of voluntary workers and private individuals who also are playing a notable part. I am sure that the House would wish to thank them all.
In this work, I, and all those engaged, have been greatly heartened by the fact that, not for the first time, the British people as a whole have shown themselves ready to respond with humanity and warmth to the plight of fellow human beings who are in need.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I wish to make clear the Opposition's view that the Government were right to accept the refugees from Uganda, and I join in the Home Secretary's remarks about the British people, who, I believe, have added greatly to their credit for tolerance and for imagination in the way they have accepted these desperate people from Uganda.
I take, first, the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the Stateless Ugandan Asians. I think it right to say that there are three categories of these, and I wish to put some brief questions about them. First, there are those who do not hold British passports but who were not able to renounce their British citizenship and who are, therefore, not regarded by the Ugandan Government as citizens. Are they presently being accepted for the purpose of coming to this country?
Second, can the right hon. Gentleman say something about what many of us regard as a disturbing situation? Is it true that where the wife and children hold British citizenship but the husband does not the wife is being put in the position of having to choose between staying with her husband or coming to safety?
Third, where children are automatically Ugandan citizens but the parents are not, and the children are still dependent on their parents, will the Home Secretary


consider treating the family as a unit albeit that they hold passports of a different type?
Further, will it be possible, in consultation with the 27 Governments who have agreed to accept some of the refugees, to enable these people to be got out to safety even though their final destination might not be settled for some time?
Next, has the Home Secretary considered the possibility of extending loans to refugees against sequestered property in Uganda to enable them to obtain mortgages for house purchase in areas which are not congested? We accept that it is important to get the refugees to settle in uncongested areas, and we believe that a loan of that kind, given against property which has been confiscated, would be accepted by the British people as a very fair way of going about it.
Can the Home Secretary give an assurance that offers of accommodation, help and jobs are being taken up quickly by the Resettlement Board? We accept that the Board is doing an excellent job, but the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there have been some complaints that offers of this kind have not been acknowledged, let alone taken up.
Finally, in relation to the troubled question of the refugees' position in respect of housing in the public sector, I must say—this will be my only political point—that if the Government had maintained the level of council housing the situation would be nothing like as serious as it is, but, granted that that has not been done, will the Government consider putting Ugandan refugees into temporary accommodation of various kinds and enabling them to acquire points for permanent housing on the same basis as if they had been residents in this country from the date of their arrival?

Mr. Carr: First, may I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. Lady in that I understand that the normal machinery failed to deliver a copy of my statement. I hope that it will not happen again.
I appreciate the hon. Lady's general support for what we have been trying to do in our basic policy.
On the hon. Lady's question about those who may be Stateless, I sought to make it clear in my statement that we

are now reviewing the cases of those who failed to renounce United Kingdom citizenship after independence. Those who we genuinely believe did not renounce and who therefore retained our citizenship will be given entry papers. That was one of the two extra categories that I said that the High Commission in Kampala is now looking at.
The second category was that dealt with in the hon. Lady's second question, namely, women and their dependants who are themselves United Kingdom passport holders but who are married to men who are not—they may be either Stateless or Ugandan citizens. We say that they can come here, so they are not being faced with the prospect of having to remain in danger. We cannot, however, accept the responsibility for the husbands and in the end, with the help of the United Nations and all the other nations, families where the head of household is not a United Kingdom citizen will normally be expected to reunite in third countries, but we are getting them here to safety at this stage.
Third, it is very difficult to treat all families as units. We make it quite clear that dependants of people who have a right to come here also have a right to come. It is always difficult to define precisely who is dependent. As the hon. Lady knows, the normal dividing age is 18. Anybody 18 or under is automatically dependent. We will consider the cases of children of somewhat older age on their merits individually and compassionately. Clearly, when children have established themselves in their own lives and are not our citizens and are not dependants we cannot extend this right to them, but we will consider cases compassionately and try to distinguish people who are genuinely dependent and not work on some rule of thumb.
The hon. Lady then asked how we were to get all the Stateless out to safety. It is noteworthy that a number of the countries I mentioned—Canada, the United States, Germany and Sweden—are offering to take Stateless persons as well as our passport holders. Also, the United Nations High Commissioner is active and is arranging temporary camps, some in Europe, to take those who cannot go to the countries I have mentioned. Therefore, I believe that is in hand, too,


but this is essentially a United Nations responsibility.
The question of extending loans to refugees to enable them to take up mortgages is very important. I hope that we can arrange something. Whether it ought to be against sequestered property is an important matter but is not important compared with the fact that loans should be available. I assure the hon. Lady that I will pursue this point.
As to the question of offers of jobs and homes being taken up quickly, I hope that this will now speed up. It was natural that the people who came here first were those who already had families and relatives here. They either did not come to the centres at all or passed through them pretty quickly. We are now left with a pretty large number, a growing number—8,500 at the weekend—in the centres. These are the people the teams are working on. It will not be easy, but it is important that we have centres which I think are not now overcrowded, and therefore it will not be a great hardship if a little time is taken for resettlement, but not months and months.
The hon. Lady asked, finally, about housing within the public sector. I will refrain from having an argument about housing policy with the hon. Lady. However, many councils throughout the country are coming forward with help. Although there are areas, of which the South-East is a prime example—there are also others—where there is great pressure on housing of all kinds, there are other areas where there is not such pressure. If we can get those areas to offer to take even half a dozen or a dozen families each, over a period this problem can be solved.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: As to those Governments who have made a welcome offer to take some of the Uganda Asians, are the offers in all cases unconditional, or are any of them subject to limitation by reference to qualifications or background of the Uganda Asians? Second, since the civilised world seems to have been unable to stop this barbarous act of expulsion, what steps are being taken to ensure that as much as possible of the cost which will be incurred in this country or other receiving countries is met by Uganda or

out of funds that would otherwise have gone to Uganda?

Mr. Carr: I cannot say that I fully understood all the implications of my right hon. and learned Friend's first question. I can say generally that the countries which are offering opportunities to these refugees to go to them if they wish to are not making conditions. It is true that some of them, naturally, are looking for people with particular skills, and to that extent perhaps one can say that there are conditions, but generally speaking these countries are not laying down conditions.
I cannot speak about what other countries are doing about the cost, but we have already made clear to the present Ugandan Government not only that we suspended the loan that we were about to make to them but that we were not making any new offers of aid. As I have said publicly from the beginning, money which we might much have preferred to have spent in Uganda on developing the Ugandan economy cannot be spent in both places. Therefore, from the point of view of the British taxpayer I do not believe that what we are doing in this country will add to that burden.

Mr. David Steel: Can the Home Secretary tell us as Leader of the House whether we will have the chance to debate this complex question at greater length in the near future?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was in Kampala last Friday and that I was very impressed by the efficiency and the scale of the operation which our High Commission there has had to carry out and that the processing of some 25,000 individuals has been conducted with remarkable skill and with a great humanitarian approach which has been widely appreciated? The High Commission, from Mr. Slater downwards, has been under considerable strain in recent weeks and those concerned have acquitted themselves, particularly those who volunteered to go out from the Home Office to carry out this task, with great distinction.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question further to his answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) about the Stateless persons? Can he say, first, whether the International Commissioner for Refugees


or the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration is yet in a position to screen and document all the Stateless persons and, second, whether, when that has been done, he will be prepared to look sympathetically at what I call the hard cases, particularly those of young people who may, as a result of being defined as Stateless, be split from their families?
Lastly, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that in Britain other Government Departments will not leave the Uganda Resettlement Board to bear the burden of this task but that the Scottish Office, the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security are fully engaged in helping in the task of resettlement? It is my view that in my constituency, for example, the local authorities could do with far more specific information from the Scottish Office about the ways in which they could be helped.

Mr. Carr: On the question of a debate, we are very near the end of this Session, but I feel sure that the Leader of the House will consider this matter among many other requests that he receives.
I was delighted to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about what is being done by our High Commission in Uganda. I am sure that it is true and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's tribute was well deserved. I will draw Mr. Slater's attention to it particularly and all of his staff out in Kampala. They have done a massive job in very difficult circumstances.
As to the Stateless people, the International Commission for Refugees and ICEM are having some difficulty. This has been one of the troubles in dealing with, shall I say, a somewhat unpredictable Government in Uganda. We are perfectly prepared to let any of our own citizens who want to come here and those who would like to go on elsewhere to be processed by either ICEM or anybody else after they have come here and then leave here again. However, we cannot as a matter of principle start to issue entry papers to Stateless persons. This would be putting on this country a burden which it is not ours to bear. I think we are already bearing a pretty onerous one as it is.
Of course, when it comes down to the last few hard cases this could be a difficult

matter, but we must maintain firmly that the responsibility for the Stateless person must rest on the international community as a whole and not on Britain.
As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the Uganda Resettlement Board, I will speak with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. In my experience, having virtually daily meetings about this, the co-operation which the Board is getting from the Department of the Environment, the Department of Employment, and, I trust, the Home Office and other Departments, is excellent, but I will inquire again about the Scottish Office.

Mr. Powell: Can my right hon. Friend refer to any legal authority independent of government which has publicly expressed agreement with the Government's interpretation in this context either of domestic law or of international law?

Mr. Carr: As a member of the Government, I accept the advice of the Government's Law Officers, which I believe it is the normal constitutional position for any Minister to do. I believe that there is a legal responsibility. I feel sure that when we gave the opportunity to these people who had been either citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies before independence of British protected persons to apply for our passports, we must have intended—speaking for myself, I did intend—that one of the rights that they acquired, but not the only right, would be the right to come to this country if they were expelled and had nowhere else to go.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is not the answer to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that the European Court is likely to rule that there is a legal obligation on us, anyway?
To come to my own question, will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the safety of British citizens, both Asian and European in Uganda? There does not appear to be any other opportunity to ask this question. As even the Chief Justice was murdered when he released a British subject on a writ of habeas corpus, it is clearly a very dangerous situation where any kind of act, however apparently reasonable or justifi-


able, may be taken as provocation. In this situation was it wise to remove Mr. Slater? I entreat the Government that in no sense should there be a break in diplomatic relations with Uganda certainly in the near future.

Mr. Carr: Mr. Slater has been recalled for consultation by my right hon. Friend. The High Commission staff is still there, working fully. We must see how it develops from that. We have had in our minds from the very beginning in dealing with an unpredictable Government such as we have in Uganda the safety of both United Kingdom passport holders and also the 6,000 to 7,000 nationals who are working in British companies, teaching, nursing, doctoring and so on in Uganda. That is something which we ought to keep and have kept very much in the front of our mind the whole time. This has in many ways conditioned what we have said and done in relation to the Uganda Government in the last few weeks.

Mr. Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread recognition that in the circumstances which they faced the Government were right to act as they did? Correspondingly, is he aware that there will be widespread relief that, owing to the Government's successful diplomatic efforts, the numbers coming here are likely to be considerably less than was at one time thought? Is it not clear that the refugees would place a much smaller burden on our resources if they were able to transfer here some of their assets? Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what the position is about that in international law and in practice?

Mr. Carr: There is little doubt about the position in law and that is that they are entitled to them. If the Uganda Government denies them those assets the Uganda Government would be in breach of their legal commitments. It has to be noted, and I will say no more than this, that President Amin has in the last week or two assured the United Nations Secretary General that he has no intention of seizing their assets. Whether in practice they will be able to gain possession of them is, I fear, another matter. It would be foolish of any of us to imagine that their chances of gaining possession of

them in any foreseeable future is anything but pretty remote.

Mr. Guy Barnett: May I ask the Home Secretary to make some kind of statement on the question of the Uganda Asian students? Presumably some will have been studying at Makerere and will be coming to this country. It is vitally important that their studies should not be interrupted. What is the position of those Uganda Asian students who are at British universities? In both cases what is the situation over grants to continue studies?

Mr. Carr: As for the Asian students from Uganda who are already here, we have them specially in mind and are asking local education authorities to waive the normal residence requirements which apply to British passport holders to qualify for grants. So the normal residential qualifications will be waived. The Board will compensate the authorities concerned for the funds for the first year. Let us deal with one year at a time. As for those students from Uganda, those of them who are either dependants or citizens of the United Kingdom in their own right will be entitled to come here. I cannot make a blanket offer to all students regardless of their nationality.

Miss Holt: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the very great disquiet there is in constituencies such as mine where there is a rather high rate of unemployment, a large waiting list for houses and a large colony of immigrants? Will he expand upon the measures which the Uganda Resettlement Board has taken to persuade refugees to go to those many constituencies where there are no immigrants, a very low rate of unemployment and no waiting list for houses?

Mr. Heller: Where is that?

Mr. Carr: Of course there is grave disquiet in many parts of the country and it would be foolish to pretend that there is not. Many people who believed that this was a responsibility and obligation which we were right to accept would have wished that we did not have it and there is nothing dishonourable about that. Those of us who believe most strongly in the reality of this responsibility and in the fact that we were right, indeed compelled, to pick it up, ought to be careful by anything we say or do not to appear to minimise the general concern,


particularly in some areas. This is very genuine and perfectly natural. All we can do, via the Board, is to persuade in as effective a way as we can people to keep away from those areas. It was inevitable that the first numbers coming would be those who had friends and relatives here and naturally they went to them. We have no power to direct people and that is what has happened. Increasingly the later entries are accummulating in the centres, in suitable and reasonably humane conditions where time can be taken to inform them about housing and other facilities in parts of the country other than the areas my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Bidwell: As one who has readily condemned the right hon. Gentleman in other respects, may I just as readily congratulate him and the Government on their humane and practical approach to this problem? May I also congratulate him on firmly resisting part of his party which is now in an open alliance with the National Front—[Interruption.]—and is seeking to make a meal of the question? May I ask him to consider the point that, in areas of heavy immigrant Asian concentration such as mine, the principle anxiety is on social rather than racial grounds? Is he aware that so long as the Uganda Asians are able to come and live decently in such areas, to pay their way and be responsible citizens, it makes no difference whatever to the genuine feelings of the indigenous people?

Mr. Carr: I deny absolutely what I regard as the evil totally unwarranted and unjustified allegation against the honour of a number of my hon. Friends—

Mr. Skinner: What about the party conference?

Mr. Carr: I was at my party conference and the hon. Gentleman, thank goodness, was not. If the hon. Gentleman's party had so honest a conference and if its leadership would accept its responsibilities in the same way as we do the country would be a lot better for it.

Mr. Deedes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cost of these camps which

may shortly be running at £1 million a month and which may be with us longer than we at first hoped is a factor to weigh? What is the view of Ministers about businesslike, financial arrangements which could assist these Uganda Asians to become independent of these camps as soon as possible?

Mr. Carr: The figure I give must be nothing better than an informed guess at this juncture, but my guess is that the camps are costing us about £1 million a month to run, all in. I think it is probably of that order. It is therefore important, for financial, and above all for social reasons, that people do not stay in these camps for longer than is necessary. We are launching, and I am afraid that this has taken longer than I originally hoped, an appeal which I trust will be backed, among others by members of the Asian community in this country, to help many of these refugees. I hope that we shall soon see that operating.
There is also the whole question of loans through banks which I am pursuing because we should remember that many of our banks have been active in East Africa and have dealt with many of these people as their clients in Uganda. I hope that in that way these people will find themselves credit-worthy to the normal banking system of this country, or if not credit-worthy at least with a record which will encourage some of those banks to take a slightly greater risk than they sometimes do.

Mr. Torney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the disquiet in some constituencies which has already been mentioned is being fanned by the activity of small but very dangerous racialist groups who are using the unfortunate situation of the Uganda Asians to make a general attack on our society and on democratic society generally? Will he take steps to watch the activities of these very nasty groups and will he also arm Members of Parliament with all the facts at his disposal? In particular, will he give us some indication of the areas in which the Uganda Asians have settled so that we will be in a position, when these nasty little groups are making all kinds of wrongful accusations, to point out that there are only 50 such people in that town, or 100 in this, or whatever?

Mr. Carr: Of course the disquiet has been fanned by nasty groups, but that is so in any activity. It is so with industrial relations, race relations, any form of human relations. It is, alas, typical of our human state. There are always some small numbers of nasty people ready to make mischief out of any situation.
What is far more true is the overall response of the British people to which I referred in my opening statement and to which the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) referred. That response has been extremely balanced in spite of the disquiet. The disquiet is genuine. There are tiny numbers of people trying to make mischief out of it. The great majority of people, in spite of their disquiet, have behaved responsibly and I think it is remarkable how few demonstrations there have been—in other words, how unsuccessful have been the sort of people to whom the hon. Member refers.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling to give on a matter of privilege. Yesterday the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) made a complaint of privilege arising out of a sentence included in a reply given in evidence before the Departmental Committee on Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, 1911—the Franks Committee.
I have studied the passage referred to, together with the remainder of the reply, the question to which it related and the earlier questions and answers which led to that reply.
My duty, as the House is aware, is only to rule whether in my view the hon. Member's complaint should be given precedence as a matter of privilege over today's business. In my opinion, after taking into account the context in which the passage occurs, I do not think that the matter can be given that priority.

Orders of the Day — MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES ADMISSION CHARGES BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

APPLICATION OF NET INCOME FROM CHARGES

One half of the income accruing to a museum or gallery from charges authorised by this Act shall be retained by such a museum or gallery for its benefit—[Mr. Strauss.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I formally move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Guy Barnett: It is about two years since the Bill's proposal was first made. Since then it has been the subject of attacks and criticism from trustees, museum staffs, educationists, connoisseurs, the Press and the public generally. One of the reasons the Bill has been subject to such a degree of attack to nothing more than a tax on those who wish to visit museums and galleries.
It is clear from the Government's statements and the White Paper that such moneys which are gathered through charges at the entrances of museums will be an appropriation in aid of the Vote given to those institutions. The Opposition have consistently argued that that must involve a tax on those who wish to visit our museums. It is commonly understood that the Government's proposal will amount to a system whereby charges which are levied on those who enter museums will benefit the museums. That is not the case. It must be made clear at the outset that the is not so and that when the charges are administered the consequence will be that the Vote in aid will be cut.
Another feature of the proposals is that those museum staffs who are involved will become collectors of a tax. That is why many members of museum staffs—I

was one myself—are bitterly opposed to the proposals. I emphasise that in no sense are the Opposition putting forward the new Clause because we are conceding the principle of the Bill. The Government seem determined, despite the delays, to push the Bill through, and we feel that it is sensible to move a Clause which will go some way to improve the Bill and to make it slightly more acceptable in the eyes of the public, especially those who care deeply about our museums and galleries.
What possible objection can there be to our proposal? First and not least, it will inject some sense into the extraordinary non sequitur which appears at the beginning of Cmnd. 4676, which says at paragraph 1(a):
A scheme of entrance charges for the national museums and galleries … In consequence the Government are able to provide additional resources for the conservation and display of their collections.
There seems to be no logical connection between the first statement and the second. It is like a headmaster saying to a class of boys "If you disobey me, I will punish you." That may be a reflection on the psychology of the headmaster, but there is no logical connection in that statement. The statement in the White Paper has gone a long way to mislead the general public into believing that these charges will benefit the museums.
The object of the new Clause is to ensure that the charges benefit the museums and institutions which have to make them at the behest of the Government. It has been argued on several occasions, by both the Under-Secretary of State and the Paymaster-General, that to adopt the new Clause would be tantamount to saying "Unto him that hath shall be given." We all know that some galleries and museums are more popular than others. It is argued that they would get more visitors and that their income would be greater, that therefore the money at the disposal of the trustees would be greater and they would have an unfair advantage over institutions that regularly receive fewer visitors.
Judging by the number of occasions when that argument has been used, I can only assume that it is a popular argument with the Government. However, it is a hypocritical argument from the Government to suggest that some kind


of equality or equity should exist between institutions. That argument is aduced by the Government which introduced the last Budget. It is odd that a proposal of that kind seems to carry a certain amount of support, judging by other Amendments suggested by Goverment back benchers.
It is in line with some of the more reputable principles of Conservative philosophy that institutions, including public ones, should be given some measure of autonomy, responsibility independent of Treasury control. That represents a small concession but establishes an important principle, which is already successfully practised in financial transactions between central and local government. Local government is given a measure of financial independence from central government and the rate support grant is used as a means of ironing out serious inequalities of income and expenditure among authorities.
4.15 p.m.
It has been said that the new Clause might lead to an unfortunate new precedent—to the hypothecation of revenue to a particular institution, which has never been allowed by the Treasury in any other circumstance, and, therefore, that that precedent should not be followed. Presumably, it is argued that the Treasury has good reasons for preventing developments of that kind, but on previous occasions the Treasury has made such a concession.
I have before me correspondence which took place in 1920 to 1921 between the National Gallery and the Treasury, the Department then responsible. These documents show that proceeds from admission charges on two days a week were allotted to the galleries for purchasing purposes between April, 1921, and April, 1924. The Treasury originally suggested that there should be three extra paying days. I quote from a letter written from the Treasury on 7th February, 1921 The writer, on behalf of the Lords Commissioners, said:
My Lords are unable in present financial conditions to sanction increased expenditure from Public Funds (including appropriations in aid from paying days on the current basis) upon the purchase of pictures etc. for the National Galleries in the financial year 1921–1922. They are prepared to assent to the allocation for this purpose of any increased

receipts derived from imposing entrance fees on such additional days (or increased rates of entrance) as the Trustees of the Galleries in question may in their discretion (subject to Their Lordships consent) determine.
That establishes beyond doubt that the Treasury has set such a precedent. Therefore, there seems no reason why that precedent should not be followed on this occasion. It seems that it is administratively possible and there is no reason why it should not be done. If it is intelligently administered, there would be no financial injustice between one institution and another.
Thirdly, it seems that considerable advantages could flow from the adoption of the Clause. The first, which I have mentioned already, is that it would give institutions a measure of independence such as the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery already enjoy in the sale of postcards and other items, and the retention of the income which they enjoy as a consequence of that. Secondly, it would provide an incentive to trustees and the staffs of such institutions, and encourage them to increase attendance, surely a principle which will appeal to Conservative Members. Thirdly, it would be an important message to the public that by visiting a museum and paying a charge they were at the same time supporting the institution in question, which no one can now say as the Bill is drafted.
I do not think that any difficulty need arise as a consequence of the issue of season tickets which grant entry to all institutions. The proceeds of that could be distributed on a basis to be agreed between the institutions concerned.
Last, and very important in view of some of the incredible estimates we have had, it would have the effect of encouraging trustees of the institutions to keep down the costs of collection of the money instead of incurring the absurd costs that have already been mentioned. Perhaps one of the most absurd, which will no doubt be mentioned again in the debate, is that relating to the Wallace Collection, where it appears to cost £5,000 to collect £16,000.
There do not appear to me to be any serious arguments against the proposal, and there are a number of positive advantages. It has the added advantage of being in line with ideals and ideas which accord with Conservative philosophy. The


words "decentralisation", "devolution of power" and "responsibility" are constantly being used on Conservative platforms. I am asking the Government on this occasion to practise those sentiments. We have seen precious little evidence of their doing so over the past two years. Instead, the Bill represents an example of creeping State control embodied in the person of the Paymaster-General.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: For once I find myself in fairly broad agreement with the interpretation of Conservative principles put forward by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett), which I do not expect will be the case on many occasions.
I have no feeling of revulsion against the idea of imposing charges for entrance to museums or galleries. I recall that in 1955 when I visited Leningrad I was charged the equivalent of more than 50p to enter the Winter Palace Museum. Last Monday week I went to Versailles. I was charged when I went into the Palace; I was charged when I went into the gallery there; I was charged when I went into the grounds; I was charged when I went to the Petit Trianon; and I was charged when I went into the Museum of Carriages. In all, the charges that the French imposed upon me again came close to 50p. I feel no sense of moral outrage, therefore, that we should be asked to pay entrance charges. It is common practice within Common Market countries and in most parts of the world where there are museums and galleries.
But I regret that the Government have presented their policy in a way that appears to have alienated both the establishment of the art world and the informed public. I do not believe that that need have happened. As the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said in Committee on 2nd March:
If the Government had said that the amount of money spent on the national museums and galleries was colossal and something had to be done about it, and that it was proposed to raise a substantial sum of money by charging visitors considerable sums to go into the museums and galleries, and that that money was to be allocated to the museums and galleries themselves, then it would have been understandable and I would not have opposed it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 2nd March, 1972; c. 195.]
We all know what will happen. For every £100 raised by the museum in

charges, £100 will be clawed back by the Treasury. In fact, £110 will be clawed back by the Treasury, because on top of the £100 there will be £10 of valued added tax, though I understand that that £10 tax charge will be returned to the gallery in an administrative way. What I object to is that there will be no incentive for the museums to try to attract visitors, a point so strongly made by the hon. Member for Greenwich.
Over the past 200 years this country has built up a great museum tradition. A great museum curator must have two sides to his nature. He must be part scholar and part showman. In the past we have been immensely strong on the scholarship side and rather weak on the showman side. This is improving. I have been vastly impressed by the qualities of showmanship on display at the Commonwealth Institute near my home, and the British Museum seems to me to have been showing a substantial improvement in the past few years. But there are other museums in London that still manage to give the impression that looking after the public is a bore which must be tolerated with regret.
I want our museums to become ever more conscious of the needs of the public. If they were allowed to keep the extra money raised by the entrance charges they would have an incentive to give the public the service it needs on such questions as later opening on certain weekdays, but under the scheme proposed by the Government there will be no incentive for the staff, as far as I can see. I had always thought that incentives were the core of Conservative philosophy.
I am sure we all appreciate that the charges were part of a deal struck by the Paymaster-General with the Treasury in 1970. In 1970 it seemed rather a good bargain that £18 million should be received for expansion in return for £1 million a year imposed in charges, but since then the economic climate has changed considerably. We have become vastly more open-handed. We no longer think of strangling lame ducks but build warm duck houses so that they may be tended with loving care, and what appeared to be a good deal in 1970 is not necessarily such a good bargain in 1972.
I do not think that the Treasury should now claim its pound of flesh. It should


be prepared to forgo half, nine-tenths or even all of the charges collected by the museums and galleries. I believe that that is what Parliament wants. The way we can tell the Treasury to take a more generous line in this matter is by supporting the new Clause, and that I intend to do.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. David Price: I must apologise to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have followed the Bill through all its stages that I intervene now for the first time at this late stage in the Bill. The House will realise that I was not available to take part at any earlier stage. I have put down certain Amendments to which I wish to speak. I think it is in order to discuss two of them with this new Clause.
I should like briefly to say a word on Amendment No. 17, which I would say to the Opposition is infinitely better than their new Clause. Their new Clause is a bad compromise; they would retain only half of the revenue from charges in any museum or gallery. It is to me an important matter of principle that the revenue should stay with the gallery or museum concerned. I am anxious, as indeed is practically every hon. Member present today, that the trustees of each gallery, each museum, should be allowed to retain the revenue arising from these charges for the benefit of the gallery or museum in question.
I would add little to the financial case, which I thought was admirably put by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett). It was sound Tory philosophy. But the substance of my case—and this is where there may be a slight difference between him and me—is not so much in financial terms as in management terms.
These charges are not a tax. It is important to realise that they are not a tax, and because they are not a tax it is essential that the trustees should have control over the revenue arising from them. It has been made clear by Government spokesmen in both Houses at all stages that these charges are not a tax but are necessary charges to increase the revenues of our galleries and museums. Therefore, if I may say so with respect to Treasury Ministers, the traditional

Treasury arguments against hypothecation of taxation, which are strong, do not apply in this case. Indeed, they are totally irrelevant. To put at its simplest, the case we deploy in these several new Clauses and Amendments is, in my judgment, a matter of how far the Government are prepared to trust the integrity and responsibility of the trustees of our galleries and museums.
Let us remember that they are distinguished men and women who give their service, their energy and their time for the public good in the management of these museums and galleries. As the hon. Member for Greenwich very rightly pointed out, it is a basic concept of Tory philosophy—I hope of Labour Party philosophy too—that people in positions of public responsibility should be given a degree of independence and of personal responsibility.
Therefore, to me the case for this group of new Clauses and Amendments rests not so much on financial terms; it rests rather on the whole question of trust, responsibility, independence and, I would add, even the self-respect of the trustees of our galleries and museums. It is on those lines that I argue my case.
We all know that many trustees do not like these charges. They have made this clear. It is also fair to say that most of them, as reasonable and responsible men and women, are prepared to accept these charges, but I think it is important that they should be allowed a minimum degree of freedom of action which my Amendment incorporates.
My case is a very modest one. I should point out to my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that it is strongly supported by the National Art Collections Fund. If the House would bear with me I should like to read a short extract from a letter to The Times on 24th August this year by Mr. Hugh Leggatt. It says:
The National Art Collections Fund passed by an overwhelming majority a motion to the effect that it expresses its support for the Amendment to the Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Bill tabled by Mr. David Price and other M.P.s to the effect that the proceeds from any further charges to the National Museums and Galleries should be at the disposal of the institutions themselves; and approves that the text of this resolution be notified to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a copy to the Paymaster-General


It would be interesting to know from my hon. Friend what the Treasury's reply was.
It was the great G. K. Chesterton who once wrote:
Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere.
I trust the Treasury will agree with us to draw the line where we modestly suggest and not where the Treasury traditionally draws it—somewhere in Great George Street.
I turn to my other Amendment, No. 16, which deals with a rather different matter. It concerns the implementation of Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970. I briefly remind the House what Section 4 says:
Any person undertaking the provision of any building or premises to which the public are to be admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, shall, in the means of access both to and within the building or premises, and in the parking facilities and sanitary conveniences to be available (if any), make provision, in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable, for the needs of members of the public visiting the building or premises who are disabled.
We all know that many galleries and museums have not been able to implement Section 4 to date. They are not in any way opposed to the principle of Section 4 but the finance has simply not been available. I know, we all know, that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts, more properly known as the Paymaster-General, has recognised the importance of improving the buildings in our galleries and museums. He made this very clear on Second Reading of the Bill in another place.
I am today arguing the case with relation to people in one particular minority group of the community, those who are physically disabled. To me the yardstick of whether a building is available to the disabled is, "Can it accommodate a wheelborne citizen?". It is a fair yardstick to use. If it can accommodate the wheelborne, it can accommodate the semi-ambulant whose disabilities are less severe.
I must declare an interest. The House knows that I am a member of a disabled family. Therefore I am in a way arguing in favour of my own family, but I think that in this case the House

will accept that it is not an entirely unfair thing to do.
This problem of access for the disabled is quite separate from the matter of admission charges. We will return to that later in our discussions today. Access for those in a wheelchair means independence; it means self-respect. This is what the wheelborne citizen desires most of all. He wishes to be a member of the general community, to do what we here are all able to do and not to be restricted by his disability. The wheelchair citizen lives in a two-dimensional world whereas we live in a three-dimensional world. In this modern age the wheelborne citizen no longer accepts the rôle of a third-class citizen. Like the rest of us, he is involved in the revolution of rising expectations.
I would quote from a very remarkable and very disabled citizen, Mr. Paul Hunt, in a book called "Stigma" which may be familiar to hon. Members:
We are challenging society to take account of us, to listen to what we have to say, to acknowledge us as an integral part of society itself. We do not want ourselves, or anyone else, treated as second-class citizens and put away out of sight and out of mind. Many of us are just beginning to refuse to be put away, to insist that we are part of life, too.
That is really my case for Amendment No. 16.
If as a society we are to integrate our wheelborne citizens into the community, then we must do much more to ensure physical access to our buildings for them, as Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act lays down. But Section 4 cannot be implemented without the finance. Therefore, I am suggesting that, at this moment, when we are imposing charges in our museums and galleries, it is appropriate that high priority in the use of that revenue should be given to ensuring access into and within our museums and galleries.
There are two aspects. There is, first, the problem of converting old buildings. This can be very expensive and very difficult. Those of us who speak for the disabled would not ask that every part of the total collection should immediately be made available. For instance, at the Victoria and Albert Museum, there are little mezzanine floors. The floors containing the main collections, to use an Italian phrase the piano mobile, should be available for wheelborne access.


Secondly, when we are building new buildings—and one thinks of the many exciting proposals in the White Paper—we must ensure that from the drawing board they are so designed that access to wheelborne citizens affords no problem.
I will illustrate the dangers from two personal experiences. The first was a few years ago, when my wife and I went to the Tate Gallery on a Sunday. I am luckily still strong so I was able to haul her chair up the front steps. If I had not been strong, God knows how we would have got in. But when we got to the main floor—it was a special exhibition for which payment was charged—we were refused admission because she was in a wheelchair. I was told "We cannot have people in wheelchairs here on a Sunday."
The other occasion was more recently. The Army Museum, near where I live in Chelsea, has been opened since the passing of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I took my wife there and found that it is totally impossible for anyone in a wheelchair to gain access unless the accompanying person is strong. Of course, one can get help from the custodians, who are always superb. I took the matter up with the Army Department and arranged a meeting with the director, who could not have been more helpful. But he said that when the old Ministry of Works accepted the building it did so although nothing had been done for wheelborne citizens. There are plans for putting in a lift on the west side which will cost, I understand, about £100,000. Yet the old Ministry of Works accepted that building although it did not fulfil Section 4 of the Act.
So, even though the Act has been passed, we are still getting new buildings which do not fulfil these criteria. Both the director and the staff of the Army Museum are helpful and sympathetic in every way. There is no discredit to them.
I realise that this is a narrow enabling Bill. Therefore, my hon. Friend may argue that it would be inappropriate to write in a specific requirement along the lines of Amendment No. 16. I am a reasonable man, as the whole House knows, and I am prepared to accept this argument—provided that he gives me satisfaction in the undertaking that I require, that he, my right hon. And

noble Friend and the Treasury Ministers will ensure that all galleries and museums for which they provide grant in aid and capital funds will be put in a financial position to implement Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. He knows me well enough to realise that if he gives me that undertaking I will accept it from him. He is an honourable man, but should his successors fail to fulfil that undertaking I will use every parliamentary device at my disposal to ensure that it is fulfilled. I know that he is an understanding man, so I hope that his characteristic understanding of the problems of the disabled will be exemplified by a precise undertaking along the lines of my Amendment.

4.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have been good enough to indicate that we may discuss a number of these new Clauses and Amendments together, and it might be of assistance if now I deal with them, although not necessarily in the order in which they appear. You will have noticed that no hon. Member has spoken to new Clause No. 3, and I imagine therefore that I would not be discourteous to the House or to any individual Member if I did not make any comment about it. In any case, by comparison with the other matters we are discussing, it is probably a comparative detail, but again I intend no discourtesy in saying that.
Perhaps in opening it would be right of me to make a point touched upon already by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price). It is one that is very familiar to the familiar faces—if I may put it that way—which I see before me and behind me from the nine amicable Sittings we had in Standing Committee. However, it does need saying at the outset and I shall say it again.
This Bill is an enabling Bill only. There is not—and there is not intended to be included within it—any detail at all, about the charges and how they operate and the exemptions and the rest. It applies only to a limited number—a very important group but only a limited number—of national galleries and museums in respect of which there is doubt or certainty that they cannot charge. It


is for that reason that, although, of course, hon. Members, in order to get the arguments on their feet—quite understandably—are seeking to amend the Bill, nevertheless, there will be occasions when I shall venture to suggest—although whether my arguments will be persuasive enough I do not know—that it is not an appropriate way forward in one or other direction by actually amending the Bill. But in return I naturally propose, as I hope I can claim I did in Committee, to answer in broad and general terms, and I shall certainly not stand on the narrow, detailed and legalistic point I have just made, however important it is.
It seems to me, therefore, that there are two broad categories of new Clause and Amendment to which I must address myself. I take, first, the very cogent argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh about access to buildings by the disabled. He was very clear to differentiate—and I am grateful to him—between charges for admission by disabled people on the one hand and the physical access to the buildings on the other.
I should like to lend whatever transient authority I have and whatever emphasis I have in support of my hon. Friend's argument. To the very best of my knowledge—and I have made careful inquiry—the most stringent and careful provisions are being made for access by the disabled to the new buildings which are the consequence of the very remarkable advance to which hon. Members have paid tribute. I know, for example, that this is so in the case of the new building at the National Gallery.
I undertake most clearly and without equivocation that I shall make it my business to draw to the attention of all those responsible for these buildings the words my hon. Friend has used, and I believe and think that all concerned are very anxious indeed that Government buildings shall fulfil the same standards that we ask and require of others under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I think that this is of immense importance.
It happens that I have a special interest in this matter, although mercifully, it is not of the same kind as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh. But

I have come close to it and I am at this moment engaged in a very modest building operation in which I have, I hope, so arranged things that rooms can be used by a disabled person. There is no merit in this because no additional cost in involved. It is just a matter of forethought—the width of doors, the position of the lavatory accommodation, and the rest—and it seems to me right that we should all of us, when we have the opportunity, seek to do these things. So this matter touches a very close feeling in me personally.
But my hon. Friend, possibly without meaning to, did illustrate one weakness, not of course in his argument, which is unanswerable, but in the method by which he would seek to achieve it. If he will, as I know he does from time to time, look at the Estimates for the national museums and galleries to which we are referring, he will see that it is not in money that passes through the hands of the trustees that the expenditures in which he is interested come.
For example, my hon. Friend made the right and fair point that the cost of adapting old buildings can sometimes be extremely high. But the adaption of these buildings is not something which falls upon the votes or moneys controlled by the trustees. I need not labour this point. It is clearly set out in the Estimates. It is one of the reasons why, if we were to accept the spirit of Amendment No. 16, we should not with the best will in the world achieve his objective. What we need is greater capital spending, which is, I am thankful to say, being acheved, and even if the money were allocated either in whole or in part from the admission charges, the spending would not be under the head that my hon. Friend is interested in.
What he and I, if I may allow myself to say so on this issue, because it is a non-party issue, have to do is to ensure that the capital programme does include proper allocations for the disabled. It is for this reason also that the argument that we could somehow improve the buildings if the charges were to be paid in whole or in part falls down as well. It really is extremely important to establish how the matter operates.
The money received from admission charges will be retained by the trustees.


This is not a new practice. It has happened frequently with other services in the past. It has happened with things like special exhibitions, reproduction rights, television rights, film rights and the rest. It has been going on under all Governments and there is nothing new about it. The money will be retained in the hands of the trustees or their officers along the lines with which they have long been familiar.
Nor do I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) that this is a tax. Admittedly, he and I have had this argument before and he does not seem to have been persuaded by what I had hoped was the blinding clarity of my analogy. The right hon. Gentleman did not argue that charges for spectacles were a tax. He knows a good deal about that subject because the Labour Party took off charges and then put them back. They know a good deal about doing things both ways—and it is becoming a growing practice—but certainly they would not have said that it is a tax. The argument is about what proportion of the cost of the spectacles should be borne by the general taxpayer and what proportion by the user. The same argument applies here in relation to the museum and gallery service. Therefore, I do not accept it as a tax in that sense.
It will still be true that, even now, the charges meet only about a twentieth of the total recurrent expenditure on museums and galleries. This is a matter of balance. I realise that there are arguments both ways about what that balance should be, but I cannot accept it as a tax in that sense.
I move on to consider whether it would be appropriate for there still to be some kind of incentive in terms of charges for those who were particularly successful in their operations.
I have explained that I do not believe we would secure the objective by the total sum of money being retained by the trustees for their own purposes within the museums, certainly not in capital terms. I find attraction in the argument—I say

this and leave it at that—that in terms of museums and galleries they are less favourably placed. It is somewhat hard, as some of them might feel, if there is a differentiation in this Bill. On the other hand, there is the argument, which is a persuasive one, that it seems hard that every single penny, no matter how successful a gallery is, should be taken into account in the balancing procedures between the Treasury and the trustees.
I wish to make it clear that the Government are anxious to encourage museums and galleries to earn as much as possible through admission charges—this is not something that should be shied away from, in that the galleries and museums should encourage increasing numbers of people to attend—and also in other ways which have been operating for some time, for example, in the sale of publications. This has enabled them to benefit if the earnings exceed the forecasts. The Government certainly wish to come to an agreement with the institutions about devoting part of the additional receipts to improving facilities for the public. Proposals have already been made, as part of a series of measures, to improve the general arrangements for administering the museums and galleries. I wish to make it clear that although proposals have been made, discussions are still in progress. It would be discourteous to the trustees if I were to anticipate those discussions. I hope that what I have said will show that there is something here for the trustees and that this will be of general assistance to them.
I end as I began, by respectfully reminding the House of the technical nature of the Bill and of the fact that we shall get greater flexibility, not by writing matters into a Bill, but in the form of administrative arrangements. I have already given two undertakings and have expressed my view. I hope the House will feel disposed to accept my advice that it would not be wise to add this new Clause to the Bill.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 196.

Division No. 337.]
AYES
[5.1 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Armstrong, Ernest
Barnes, Michael


Albu, Austen
Ashton, Joe
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkinson, Norman
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Baxter, William




Beaney, Alan
Goodhart, Philip
Ogden, Eric


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gourley, Harry
O'Halloran, Michael


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Malley, Brian


Bidwell, Sydney
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Orme, Stanley


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Oswald, Thomas


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Palmer, Arthur


Bradley, Tom
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hardy, Peter
Pardoe, John


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)
Hattersley, Roy
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Heffer, Eric S.
Perry, Ernest G.


Buchan, Norman
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prescott, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, Arthur


Campbell, I (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rankin, John


Cant, R. B.
Hunter, Adam
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Greville
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowlands, Ted


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kaufman, Gerald
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cunningham, Cr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kelley, Richard
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lambie, David
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamborn, Harry
Sillars, James


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lamond, James
Silverman, Julius


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lawson, George
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Dempsey, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spearing, Nigel


Doig, Peter
Leonard, Dick
Spriggs, Leslie


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stallard, A. W.


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lipton, Marcus
Steel, David


Driberg, Tom
Loveridge, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Strang, Gavin


Dunnett, Jack
McBride, Neil
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Swain, Thomas


Edelman, Maurice
McGuire, Michael
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff. W.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Torney, Tom


Ellis, Tom
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Fred
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Varley, Eric G.


Ewing, Harry
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wainwright, Edwin


Faulds, Andrew
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Marsden, F.
Wallace, George




Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Foot, Michael
Mayhew, Christopher
Whitlock, William


Ford, Ben
Meacher, Michael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mendelson, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Freeson, Reginald
Milne, Edward
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)



Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Garrett, W. E.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Woof, Robert


Gilbert, Dr. John
Moyle, Roland
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Golding, John
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Brewis, John
Cockeram, Eric


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cooke, Robert


Astor, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Coombs, Derek


Atkins, Humphrey
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick


Awdry, Daniel
Bryan, Sir Paul
Costain, A. P.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Crouch, David


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bullus, Sir Eric
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Ma[...].-Gen.Jack


Balniel, Rt. Hon. Lord
Burden, F. A.
Dean, Paul


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Benyon, W.
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Dixon, Piers


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Carlisle, Mark
Dykes, Hugh


Biffen, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Emery, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Blaker, Peter
Channon, Paul
Fell, Anthony


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Chapman, Sydney
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Body, Richard
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fidler, Michael


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Churchill, W. S.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bossom, Sir Clive
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bowden, Andrew
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fowler, Norman


Bray, Ronald
Clegg, Walter
Fox, Marcus







Gibson-Watt, David
MacArthur, Ian
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McCrindle, R. A.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Glyn, Dr. Alan
McLaren, Martin
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Gower, Raymond
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Maurice (Farnham)
Rost, Peter


Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Green, Alan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marten, Neil
Scott, Nicholas


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray
Simeons, Charles


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sinclair, Sir George


Hall-Davis A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman
Soref, Harold


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Spence, John


Harrison Brian (Maldon)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sproat, Iain


Harrison Col. Sir Harwood Eye
Molyneaux, James
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hawkins, Paul
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector
Sutcliffe, John


Hicks, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus
Tapsell, Peter


Higgins, Terence L.
More, Jasper
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hiley, Joseph
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Holland, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Tebbit, Norman


Holt, Miss Mary
Morrison, Charles
Temple, John M.


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Murton, Oscar
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hunt, John
Neave, Airey
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)



Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Normanton, Tom
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


James, David
Nott, John
Trew, Peter


Jenkins, Patrick (Woodford)
Onslow, Cranley
Tugendhat, Christopher


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Jessel, Toby
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Jopling, Michael
Osborn, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Waddington, David


Kilfedder, James
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Kinsey, J. R.
Parkinson, Cecil
Weatherill, Bernard


Kirk, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Knox, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wilkinson, John


Lambton, Lord
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Winterton, Nicholas


Lamont, Norman
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Woodnutt, Mark


Lane, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Worsley, Marcus


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Le Merchant, Spencer
Raison, Timothy



Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Redmond, Robert
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Mr. Tim Fortescue.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

LIBERTY TO CHARGE FOR ADMISSION

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, at end insert:
'but such admission charges shall not be made payable on more than six days in each week unless the trustees or governing body concerned are satisfied that to allow free admission on any day or days in the week would be undesirable'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this Amendment I think we might conveniently discuss Amendment No. 2, in line 8, at end insert:
'but the trustees or governing body concerned shall have power at their discretion to allow admission free of charge for one hour on not more than two days in each week'.
and Amendment No. 3, in line 8, at end insert:

'but such admission charges shall not be made payable on more than five days in each week unless the trustees or governing body concerned are satisfied that to allow free admission on any day or days in the week would be undesirable'.

Mr. Faulds: It is abundantly clear that a number of the boards of our national institutions wish to have a free day or free times at which visitors can be admitted without charge to view the objects and paintings with which they have been entrusted.
Eight of these national institutions have made it quite clear to the Minister that they wish to allow free access at certain times to their collections, and the Paymaster-General has had to admit the trustees' right so to do.
The other institutions have not pressed for free viewing simply because, in the judgment of their trustees, although they nearly unanimously reject the introduction of charges, they are frightened that


complete security and constant invigilation could not be ensured for their collections.
The National Gallery trustees have already decided to have one free day a week. The Chairman, Sir Edward Playfair, wrote to the noble Lord stating that his trustees were firmly opposed to any charges, but that they had to accept that the Government were in a position to enforce their policy through financial sanctions against the institutions that did not co-operate. His letter—I am sure the Under-Secretary will recall this—told the Paymaster-General bluntly that it was the trustee's business, not his how they achieved the £170,000 expected of them. Accordingly, they have decided to have free entrance on Wednesdays and to double up the entry charges on Mondays and Fridays.
The Tate Gallery issued a Press statement on 26th July this year, part of which said:
We have not in any way changed the views which we have expressed regarding the undesirability in principle and detail of the Government's scheme of entrance charges. We much regret a decision which will substitute a most illiberal scheme for the present system, which has existed for generations and which is widely admired and envied abroad. … The Trustees have given a great deal of thought to the problem of how they could reconcile the Government's view, which is opposed to a free day, with their own wish to have some time when the public can visit the Tate without charge.
The Trustees have decided that in present circumstances, and assuming that admission charges are imposed by the Government, their aim can best be achieved by opening the Gallery on Tuesday and Thursday evenings between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. without charge and this they will arrange for an experimental period of one year.
Of course, the trustees, under the able guidance of their Chairman, Sir Robert Sainsbury, were perfectly entitled so to do, and to tell the Minister, in other words, to take a running jump.
The trustees of the National Galleries of Scotland, in their report for 1971, state:
Nor can we be content with a situation in which we are pressed by the implicit threat of cuts in our grants to impose charges against our beliefs, or to seeing the conditions of past benefactions—where these include free public access to the works of art concerned—overruled by Order under the new legislation.  We would strongly press that we should, at our discretion, be able to provide one free day in each week.

5.15 p.m.
The trustees of the National Museum, of Antiquities of Scotland state in their report this year that there has been a marked decrease in attendance because there seemed to be a widespread belief that charges had already been introduced; and they deduce:
The present figures, however, reinforce the case for at least a weekly free day.
The situation at the Ulster Museum is that the Government intend, by Order in Council, to scrap the existing legislation, which provides for three days free viewing a week in Belfast. That action will be taken against the wishes of the trustees, and with no public debate on the question in the sad circumstances of Northern Ireland.
We come then to the Wallace Collection. This is an enormously rich bequest to the nation which must be worth the best part of £200 million. It is a set collection, so has no requirement for a purchase grant, and is therefore happily open neither to the blandishments nor to the blackmail of the Minister. The trustees have decided, rightly and courageously, to have a free day without doubling up the charges on any other day. The probable loss in takings over a year would be about £3,000. This has sent the noble Lord in another place into a terrible tizzy. He complained in the other place, on 10th August, that
obviously to have a fee free day without any compensating increase in the charges would mean that the Wallace Collection was not collecting its fair proportion of the £1 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 10th August; Vol. 334, c. 1273.]
I ask the Under-Secretary directly: what is his noble Friend contemplating in revenge? I like that smile. I hope it means that we shall get an answer. Does he intend to cut the Gallery's money with which it pays its staff? Perhaps the Under-Secretary will come clean and tell us.
What would a free day cost at the eight institutions which have expressed a wish to introduce them? We know, from the optimistic assessments of the Department, what the figures of hoped far takings are. Incidentally, most of the figures which appeared in the Supply Estimates did not originate from, and did not receive the endorsement of, the various institutions, despite—I am sorry to say this—the misleading replies given to me by the


Under-Secretary. However, the Department's estimates of gross annual takings were, for the four English institutions, £302,000—the figures appear in HANSARD of 18th January, c. 139—and, for the four Scottish institutions, £36,400—HANSARD of 15th March. That makes a grand total of £338,400. Therefore, it is easy to deduce that the loss for one free day a week would be unlikely to exceed more than a sixth or so of that total—about £60,000.
As I summed up in a rather good article in The Spectator of 14th October this year:
Must the Government really insist on penalising the institutions to extort this miserable sum from the public, on the score that the nation cannot face so damaging a loss?
Really! Why is there all this outcry from responsible people in the educational, communications and art worlds, at this imposition of charges? I believe it is simply that they realise better than this unfeeling and uncaring Government that many people in our supposedly affluent society simply cannot afford to find the sums needed for a family visit: that many children who would fire their imaginations and sate their curiosity by frequently visiting museums and wandering round them cannot afford to find the fivepences: that those on low incomes, like old-age pensioners, those on supplementary benefit and the widowed, need their carefully collected pennies for carefully calculated expenditure on food and warmth and the necessities of life. The chronically ill are penny-pinched already. Are their misfortunes to be added to by the deprivation of satisfaction of their hunger for beauty and enlightement and spiritual uplift which they can get when they go into a gallery?
I urge the Government to accept the Amendment. It is already clear that eight of our national institutions are eager to provide free viewing on certain occasions weekly. The Government should consider the informed arguments of the trustees, the informed arguments of the more responsible Press and the informed arguments of educationists. They should not broach the accepted tradition of generations of the public right to free viewing—, and in the case of the British Museum it goes back a couple of hundred years. The Government should considerately

take into account the sad situation of the impoverished and deprived members of our community who will simply have to do without the enrichment of viewing our great collections.
I urge the Government to have the sense and feeling to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Goodhart: I am sure that everyone is grateful to the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) for having brought a touch of black magic to our debates this afternoon. I believe that once upon a time a certain Minister—I think that he was a Member of a Labour Administration—got into some trouble because he advanced the doctrine that the man from Whitehall knows best. Many Members who are now on this side of the House thought that that was not a right doctrine to put forward.
I believe, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), that in the past our national galleries and museums have been excessively dependent upon the Treasury and I would have hoped that the power to impose charges would have been used in such a way as to give them a certain modicum of independence, but the correspondence which has passed between the Paymaster-General and the Chairmen of the Boards of Trustees of the National Gallery and the Tate on the question of free days suggests that the power to impose charges has been used to decrease the power of the trustees, rather than to increase it.
It may well be that the Paymaster-General knows more about museums than anybody else in the business, and certainly anyone who has listened to him expound on this subject must have been impressed by his vast expertise, but it seems to me that the principle is wrong when he says "I do not see how I could allow free days at some museums and not at others." That seems to me to represent a wholly undesirable extension of the thesis that, first, Whitehall knows best and, secondly, that uniformity for all must take place because it is more convenient that way.
I want the trustees to have the power to have a free day without imposing excessive charges on other days. I want the trustees to have the power, if they


feel like using it, to give a free week, or even a free month, if they decide that the gallery and the public would benefit. I think that this is an instance in which the Government ought to follow traditional Conservative policy and keep their intervention to an absolute minimum.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: I thought that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) used a felicitous phrase when he said that the Paymaster-General knew more about museums than anyone in the business. I am not sure whether the first part is appropriate, but I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is right when he so describes the mercenary approach of the Paymaster-General to the matters which we are discussing. Nevertheless, we welcome support from wherever it comes, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be warned by the narrow majority in the last Division. I hope, indeed—and perhaps I may recall the couplet
Betwixt the stirrup and the ground
Mercy I asked, mercy I found"—
that he will be willing to accept the Amendment which, he will recall, was so narrowly defeated in Committee.
I need not remind the House that this is a Philistinic and reactionary Bill. It is a Bill which has been divisive in its effect. It has produced a confrontation not only between classes, but between administrators and the administered. It is a Bill which has revived some of the worst practices of the past when education and knowledge were taxed. The Under-Secretary of State might call it a charge on education or knowledge, but certainly the effect is the same.
I make this preamble because I want to deal specifically with Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, though with more sympathy for No. 2, because, as I said on Second Reading and in Committee, I do not regard the free day as something intrinsically desirable. I consider it to be a very second best alternative. If the choice is between people being totally deprived of the opportunity of access to galleries, or only partially deprived, then clearly one would settle for partial deprivation.
If I may, in one or two sentences, rehearse the arguments which I have used in the past, I am obliged to say that the idea of herding those unable to pay into the galleries on one specific

day when they will have the disadvantage of not being able to get near the pictures or objects which they want to see and study is clearly something that will handicap everyone who wants to go to museums and galleries.
The analogy of a sort of Bond Street vernissage, where crowds of people turn up to see the pictures, might be put forward as a reason for herding people into galleries on the free day—after all, these vernissages are free and, indeed, visitors have the opportunity of a free glass of champagne. But I cannot help feeling in the context of a free day for public galleries that all that will happen is that some of the most concerned people, some of those who are best qualified by temperament and by interest to view the pictures and study the objects, will have to see them under conditions substantially worse than those enjoyed by the paying public.
If I have to make a choice between the benefits of Amendment No. 1 and those of Amendment No. 2, I should be inclined to say that it would be much more desirable for museums and galleries to extend the hours of access to their premises by allowing free viewing after, say, 5 o'clock, or 6 o'clock, as the case may be.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State made the cogent point, which I accept, that administratively it will cost more to arrange for extensions of hours than would otherwise be the case. I ask him to take the analogy—I know that he is interested in analogies—of the great stores like Selfridges, Harrods or whatever it may be, which now have days when their hours are extended so that people who might otherwise be prevented from visiting their premises have the opportunity to do so. These commercial organisations overcome the administrative difficulties, perhaps involving paying overtime rates to the attendants or those in charge of security.
5.30 p.m.
I see no administrative reason whatever why the museums and galleries covered by the Bill should not exercise the option of extending their hours so that people, instead of having to say, "I shall go on Tuesday because it is free then ", thus being put into the category of second-class citizen—travelling, so to speak,


second class artistically—will be able to go on any day of the week during the free hours if the inclination moves them.
I need not underline what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) when he spoke, in effect—I am paraphrasing his words—of the pleasure of prowling in a gallery or museum. This, surely, is what education is all about. It is part of the quality and life—the slogan on which right hon. and hon. Members opposite were elected.
If the Government persist in barricading their empire by means of this toll which they will exact from those who want to have access to the heritage of the nation, they will do a great disservice not only to our generation but to generations to come.
Already, there has been a fall in admissions to some of the museums and galleries named in the Bill. This fall has not taken place because the charges have been applied. It has taken place because, thanks to the debate which has been going on in the nation as well as in the House, there is an impression, especially among young people, that the charges are already in operation, and for that reason young people are staying away. This is to do a great disservice to our nation and to prosperity, and for those reasons I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will think again.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I support the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), but I wish to open by thanking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for his courtesy over the last nine months when, in private and in public, I have been his aggressor. At all times, I have appreciated the courtesy with which he has treated me, and, even though we have rarely agreed, I have been delighted that at all times he has attempted to answer each case individually.
I believe in seven free days a week. One free day is a bad compromise, but I shall support it because it is the only compromise which I see on the Paper that I can support. I saw it in New York, in the Museum of Modern Art, which many hon Members on both sides will have seen. It had its free day on a Monday, which appeared to be a very sensible day, after the weekend was over. If we

have to have the Bill, I am very much in favour of the free day, and I should even recommend that it be on a Monday.
I am against the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows because of the young and because of the old. I have at no time fought for the middle section, in respect of whom, perhaps, there is an argument for it. I have never seen an argument showing why the young or the old should pay.
Two days ago, I received a letter from an old-age pensioner which finally convinced me. There have been some of my hon. Friends, and even constituents, who said, "If they can spend money on bingo, why should not they be charged to go to a museum or art gallery?". I tried desperately to explain that the very people who go to museums and art galleries are not the people who go to bingo.
I shall now read this letter, which came to me not from a constituent but from someone who knew that I was against the Bill:
Dear Sir, I am appealing as an old-age pensioner for the inspiring freedom of entry into our British national museums and art galleries, as enjoyed by present old-age pensioners, to be continued. During the last years of my life, I have had real and actual experience as an old-age pensioner of glorious freedom to see beautiful things exhibited freely in our national museums and art galleries. It was late in my life, because of a bad education, that I discovered them.
This is especially dear to me now, when I realise that I am at the end of my life and must soon die. Please do everything in your power to see that this small pleasure which I still enjoy can be continued. It would be a wonderful action of your Government, and a courageous action for a Minister to stand up and say, 'We have made a mistake and we are going to drop the Bill'.
Yours respectfully,
J. A. G. Smith (Aged 83)".
The Under-Secretary will say, perhaps rightly, that that is one case. I have never minded at any stage fighting for one person who wanted free admission to continue. I never minded fighting for a minority, a minority of young or a minority of old, even if they were a minority within the minority. I was still willing to fight for them, because if there is a section of the nation who will no longer be able to take advantage of the present freedom—or the privilege, as it would become—we are lesser in this House and we are lesser in this country.
The free day is a bad compromise. I consider this a bad Bill. I was particularly sorry, as, I know, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall was, that the Bill did not disappear quietly. I should not have been surprised because it looked as though, with the legislation for this Session, it could have been left to drift without much being said, and I suspect that the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds), despite much trumpet blowing up to now, would have let it go down fairly quietly if he thought we could have got rid of it that way.
For my part, I think that it would have done our side considerably more credit if the Minister had said, "We have made a mistake, and we are getting rid of the Bill." One compromise would have been to let it drop. The free day is a bad compromise, but I shall support it.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I must at the outset say how much I support everything said by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer). One outstanding feature of the whole debate so far has been the remarkable degree of unanimity between both sides in opposition to the Bill and the Government's introduction of it. I entirely concur in the arguments put by hon. Members opposite today. The free day is a second best. That is all it is. We should regret the necessity for it, but, it the Bill is to go through, we see it as the only answer to the kind of problem to which the hon. Member for Louth has just referred.
Apart from anything else, the free day would at least remove the seventh day of the week from the commercialism of the Paymaster-General. Moreover, it would enable great numbers of people such as those to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, when quoting from that letter, to go into our museums and enjoy them at a time in their lives when, perhaps, after years of lack of opportunity earlier in life, they have a chance to expand their education.
I have drawn to the Under-Secretary's attention the problems faced by large families living, perhaps, in outer London, people with limited means who, if the charges are instituted, will have to find, in addition to the cost of transport to and from, this additional sum. It will be an appalling consequence for them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) was right to point out the essential point which we should argue at this stage of the Bill, namely, that we should leave to the trustees a large element of discretion as to the way they handle their business. How much better that the trustees managing museums and galleries are left with the responsibility each to decide on his own and not according to a uniform principle laid down by the Paymaster-General as to what is the right or wrong thing to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick referred to the situation of the Wallace Collection. If the Press is to be believed—I quote from Miscellany in The Guardian of 23rd September—a major test of wills is emerging between the Paymaster-General and the trustees of the Wallace Collection. In that test of wills I am on the side of the trustees of the Wallace Collection.
What is the battle of wills supposed to be about? The Wallace Collection is expected to collect £16,000. It will cost over £5,000. That makes a net income of £11,000. It has been estimated fairly reliably that the cost of a free day at the Wallace Collection would be about £3,000.
Because I was interested in the negotiations that have been going on between the Paymaster-General and the trustees I asked a Question which was replied to yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State. I asked him whether the projected meeting had taken place between the Paymaster-General and the Chairman of the Wallace Collection. I asked—
what effect it has had on the decision of the Board to admit the public free on one clay a week, without compensatory increases in charges on other days.
I received this almost ludicrous reply from the Under-Secretary:
Yes. The Government are considering further under what conditions it would be possible for the trustees to have a free day without endangering the £1 million.
It is almost as though the Paymaster-General regarded the £1 million as God—it is absolutely sacred. The opportunity to enable people who may be needy and who cannot afford the entrance fee to get in to see these beautiful pictures is being neglected because the Treasury must have its pound of flesh and will not forgo this small sum of £3,000.
The Under-Secretary should tell us whether the trustees of the Wallace Collection have given in to Lord Eccles, because I received no clear reply to my Question. I was merely told that
The Government are considering further under what conditions it would be possible for the trustees to have a free day …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th October, 1972; Vol. 843, c. 53.]
That reply suggests to me that the trustees have stood firm and that Lord Eccles has had no change out of them. If I am right in that, all I can say is good luck to them.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I apologise for intruding for a few minutes in the debate, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows that I felt after much contemplation compelled to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill some months ago.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) said about the courtesy, consideration and patience with which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has dealt with criticisms in both public and private.
I adopt a slightly different standpoint from that of my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and for Louth. I have never been against the principle of charging to enter these art galleries and museums. Indeed, I can see some consequences that might be agreeable if charges were made.
However, I have been totally against the principle of denying free access to all people, at least at certain times. We shall break a great British tradition if we do so for the relative pittance of £1 million, remembering that the total administrative costs of the art galleries and museums are £18 million.
I should therefore be able to support the Third Reading, whereas I was opposed to the Bill's Second Reading, if Amendment No. 1 were accepted. Although in a sense I prefer Amendment No. 3, which would in effect give a discretion of two free days rather than one free day a week, I am prepared to accept Amendment No. 1.
I appreciate but do not quite follow the argument of the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) in his

support of Amendment No. 2. I do not disagree with the Amendment, but I believe that it gives discretion for one free hour a day on only two days a week. I therefore think that the hon. Gentleman's arguments against Amendment No. 1 might apply to Amendment No. 2.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who I know is very sensitive and who, as a result of putting forward the Bill, has received much unfair criticism, to see if he can make it possible for the Government to accept Amendment No. 1.
My hon. Friend the Member for Louth has spoken in eloquent terms, as have other hon. Members, about the need to help the young and the old. I am very chary about picking out the young and the old. These are people who come between those two extreme age groups who also will suffer. Help should be given to those in need irrespective of their age.
I hope that the Government can make it possible for me to vote with them on Third Reading by accepting Amendment No. 1 which would restore the right of all people to enter these galleries free at least at certain times during the week, the month or the year.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I realise how very sincerely the arguments are held on both sides of the House. I start by reminding the House that we are talking about a free day, in whole or in part. We are not talking about a selective policy for admission of particular groups. I say that to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) in particular, because I must not stray on to that point as there is a set of Amendments yet to come dealing with that. My hon. Friend will acquit me of discourtesy, I trust, if I do not go into detail into the question of differential charging or lack of charging for different groups for that procedural reason. I know that my hon. Friend will be following our proceedings and I undertake to deal as fully as I can with that aspect of the problem when we reach it.
We are discussing here whether it is appropriate and, if so, on what terms, for those trustees who wish it to be enabled to have a free day. We must start, and we have throughout started, by reminding ourselves that it is only a certain number of trustees who do. This is not inimical to the argument. I state it


as a fact. There are trustees who have stated in public their trenchant opposition to free days and no one on either side is desirous of forcing them against their will.
The practice of free days is not as widespread elsewhere as is sometimes thought, though it exists elsewhere. I should be the last to suggest that just because it does not occur elsewhere we should or should not do it. I just say as a fact that it happens.
I have, for example, enjoyed a visit to the Mauritshuis at The Hague which I personally would acclaim as the most elegant gallery I know in Europe. There is no free day there, though there is a day at half cost. I paid my first and enormously enjoyable visit to the Prado in Madrid where there is no free day.
Just because in Madrid and at The Hague they do not have a free day is no good reason why we should not have one. I simply say that it is not a widely universal operation in great galleries. I simply establish the fact that the idea that we, if we did not have a free day, would be totally out of step with all the other great galleries is not accurate.

Mr. Edelman: I am interested in the Under-Secretary's references to foreign galleries. Does he agree that the nature and quality of the attendances in those galleries is greatly determined by the fact that people have to pay? In short, and to use an anomalous term, the attendances tend to be middle class rather than to reflect the nation's image, precisely because there are charges.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I should hesitate to draw that conclusion based on several visits over several days. However, I am glad to say that on the occasions that I went to both galleries, the average age of those attending was remarkably low. That is why we have special arrangements which reflect that in the case of, for example, organised school parties. I am not saying that I believe that conclusions can be drawn from the charging provision, partially because in any case there was no method of comparison.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I had hoped that the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) would add to his list. I believe the vast majority of visitors to the galleries which he has attended and

which I have had the privilege of seeing are holidaymakers or visitors. What we are discussing are itinerant people in this country whom we wish to protect. I should like to find a way of charging visitors, but I do not know how to do it. We are here to protect those that live in this country.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I went to the two galleries that I have mentioned during the holiday season. I have not had the privilege of being there in the non-holiday season. For all I know, if one went there when "the filthy English" and "the rowdy Americans" were not in Madrid we should find civilised Spaniards enjoying the galleries there.
I remind my hon. Friend, who has given me a little of my argument, that a large proportion of visitors in at any rate the holidays months—the holiday season is being extended throughout the year—are visitors from overseas, for whom in respect of each visit the taxpayer is paying £1 a head.
I turn now to the proposal of the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) in Amendment No. 2. I undertook in Committee that we would have a sympathetic look at this problem. The hon. Member will agree that if we were to have a partial free time—an hour, say—administratively, and from the point of view of control, it would have to be at the end of the day. I am not trying to make excuses, because I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I have tried to find the answer.
6.0 p.m.
One of the difficulties is the variety of closure times. I had not appreciated, until I looked into it as a result of my undertaking, how great a variety there was. There is a considerable variety and they vary at different times of the year. My noble Friend is proposing to watch this suggestion closely. He will be reviewing it in association with the trustees and if it should be shown that administratively there comes a point of time in the day when it would make sense not to make a charge and that this, in the light of experience is the right way to proceed, then I have no doubt that in consultation with the trustees he will be happy to agree to proposals which are broadly of this nature.
I make it clear that this is only after a review and seeing how matters proceed. It cannot be other than on the administrative side. I see the hon. Member for Coventry, North nodding. I have attempted to see how we can help in a purely administrative sense at the end of the day.
Now we come to the major question. I accept and understand that all hon. Members who have spoken about this are against charges. Since, for the moment, I am the Minister, I accept total responsibility for the concept of charges. Against the background of charges there are very real doubts as to whether a free day is wise. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) attempted to put me into the same slot as the gentleman in Whitehall in that famous phrase. The gentleman in Whitehall is entitled to a view. I do not think he necessarily knows best, but he is entitled to speak, just as others have spoken.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The gentleman from Whitehall is speaking now.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am glad that I am being heard. I am entitled to say that the arguments against the free day suggestion, put for example by the hon. Member for Coventry, North and others and held by a number of trustees, are persuasive. Let me give an example. We heard a good deal about family parties. Almost everyone is agreed that if we have a free day it cannot be a Saturday. I do not think that any trustees, against a background of charging, are contemplating a free day on a Saturday, for obvious reasons. Self-evidently if there is a free day on a weekday the number of family parties who can take advantage of it is demonstrably limited, to put it no higher. Therefore, we have to think carefully about its wisdom.
My noble Friend has already agreed to proposals of a different nature from two sets of trustees. The House will know that the trustees of the Tate Gallery, from private funds available to them—I understand generous benefactions—will open the Gallery for two evenings a week for two hours free of charge. They do so against a background of having

accepted, unwillingly, their commitment to charges. There is no attempt on our part to stop this. It would be interesting to see how it operates.
The trustees of the National Gallery on the other hand have come up with a different proposal. They are proposing that on one day a week they shall open free and on two days a week they shall charge double. I must make it clear that that will still work on the basis of concessions to the young, the old and so on remaining at half price. I make that clear because I hope the House appreciates what it is that is proposed to be done. The trustees have accepted, again unwillingly, their responsibility for the money to be raised and at the height of the summer will be charging 40p as a standard charge.
It may be that this is regarded as a sensible scheme against a background of charges. To me it displays a woeful lack of understanding of the sort of people we want to enable to appreciate art. To have to free day in the middle of the week when it can only be enjoyed by a limited social group of people is the very negation of what we should be attempting to do. Frankly, the basis of this whole operation, which includes a massive increase in capital investment, is the much wider use of our treasures and to make them available to a far greater number of people. As an individual I believe that the National Gallery scheme is a very poor one indeed. Far from seeking to exert pressure upon the trustees, my noble Friend, although he has expressed his views strongly, will allow them to proceed and it will be interesting to see how it works.
Reference was made to a collection of a different nature, a much smaller collection in money terms. If the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) looks again at the estimates for the Wallace Collection and does not confine himself to the recurrent expenditure, but examines also the increases on capital account in the current financial year which do not come through moneys from the trustees, and if he reflects on the way in which the general body of the taxpayer is quite properly making, proportionately, a substantial contribution to that museum he will perhaps see how the


benefits of increased investment are being made available in many ways.
If we are to have this expansion, it is not unreasonable that a certain small segment of this additional expense should be borne by the user of the museum and gallery. If any museum and gallery trustees wish to have a free day it is right that they should do so, as the Tate and National Gallery trustees, to their credit, are doing—against the background of the proportion of charges with which they will produce.
That is why, apart from the narrow technical point, I believe it would be wrong to advise the House to accept the Amendment. I am not the least concerned about voting figures. It is well known that a substantial and high level group from this side of the House is absent on important business in Paris and it will be quite sufficient for us to be left do the donkey-work.

Mr. Strauss: We naturally regret that the Under-Secretary is unwilling to accept our Amendment. I am certainly not surprised, because throughout he has shown a strong prejudice against the idea which we think to be important, that every member of our community, rich or poor, however poor, should be able to visit our museums and galleries to see our national heritage of art, historic and scientific exhibits and that nothing should deprive people of that right.
The hon. Gentleman does not accept that principle and neither apparently does the Secretary of State. We believe that the whole idea of charging our public, for the first time for 200 years, to see the artistic possessions which are theirs, which have been given to them, in buildings which have often been given to them, too, is wholly wrong. It has been admitted once or twice by Ministers in discussing this matter that there may be a few people who will be debarred, because of poverty, from seeing these pictures and treasures. No one should be debarred; everyone should be able to see these things.
The only way of doing that is by a free day. The Under-Secretary said that other museums and galleries in the world which impose charges did not always have free days. But they usually do. Nearly all the big ones do, but whether or not they do is not important. We

do not necessarily want to follow what is happening abroad. The hon. Member suggested that we should follow what is happening in Moscow. Because they charge that was a good reason why we should charge, he said. We do not accept that. We say there is an overwhelming case for having, as do most national galleries of the world where there are charges, a free day.
The Government have argued against this, the Under-Secretary in particular, from the beginning. So determined is he that this proposal should be opposed that he has gone haywire in his arguments. I want to quote the argument he put forward in Committee on this which is utterly ridiculous. He chided us about these proposals and said about the Labour Party:
Can one imagine a more middle-class argument than that—splendid for the leisured and splendid for those who do not have to work? Would it be splendid for those who labour at their bench to know that there is a free day available for those who can afford to take advantage of it? The only other group of people who could take advantage of it are school-children because they have school holidays, but I have sought to show how educational interests are to be safeguarded. I find it astonishing to have this proposal pressed by the Opposition when, self-evidently, it could apply to only a small number of people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 29th February, 1972; c. 166.]
If the hon. Member has any experience abroad he will know that the Louvre and other great galleries are more crowded on free days than on the days when people have to pay. There are hundreds of thousands of people who will take the opportunity available to them. There are a large number of married women who have free days or who can easily spare an afternoon to go to a gallery; there are the unemployed, the ill, those unable to work, the poorer section of the population who do not have work every day and who would be only too delighted to have the opportunity of going to the galleries.
It is these people, the worst-off in the community from a material point of view, who have the least material benefits, who should be enabled to enjoy the spiritual benefits available by visiting our museums and galleries. But the Under-Secretary of State says "No". He says that one of the reasons is that the proposal would benefit only a small number of middle class people. Even if the people who


benefited were only a small number of middle class people, that would not matter; but that is obviously untrue.
The Under-Secretary of State has told us that he has reluctantly agreed to the Tate Gallery's proposal. The hon. Gentleman does not like it because it makes an exception to the general rule which the Government have laid down. Clearly, the Minister believes in uniformity in everything. One of the hon. Gentleman's earlier arguments was that it would be ridiculous and wrong if there were one or two galleries allowing a free day and other galleries not doing so, and the Tate Gallery proposal offended his idea of correctness.
Uniformity is wholly unimportant and it may be undesirable. The hon. Gentleman does not like the Tate Gallery's proposal, although he has had to accept it because the Tate Gallery trustees said that if the proposal was not accepted the money would have to be found from other resources.
The hon. Gentleman detests the proposal put forward by the National Gallery. He opposes it but he says that he has accepted it. One of the reasons he did so was that he was fearful of the attitude of the trustees of the National

Gallery. He was afraid that if the Government did not accept the proposal, the trustees of the National Gallery would impose it and operate it whatever the Government thought, whatever financial penalty the Government chose to impose. It is for that reason more than any other that the Government reluctantly accepted the proposal by the trustees of the National Gallery.
The essence of the problem is whether special steps should be taken if we have to impose charges, which we deplore, to allow those who cannot afford to pay such charges, who may be just as anxious and eager to see our national heritage of art as anybody else, to enjoy free admission. If they are children, as many are, they are the most likely to benefit from visiting museums and galleries to see our treasures. Are we to take special steps within the framework of admission charges to galleries and museums to allow such people to visit them free? I say that that would be in the social interest, the public interest and especially in the interest of children. The Government say "No". We regret their decision and we will vote against it.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 196.

Division No. 338.]
AYES
[6.12 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Albu, Austen
Chapman, Sydney
Ford, Ben


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Forrester, John


Allen, Scholefield
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cohen, Stanley
Freeson, Reginald


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Concannon, J. D.
Galpern, Sir Myer


Armstrong, Ernest
Conlan, Bernard
Garrett, W. E.


Ashton, Joe
Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Gilbert, Dr. John


Atkinson, Norman
Crawshaw, Richard
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Golding, John


Barnes, Michael
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Goodhart, Philip


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dalyell, Tam
Gourlay, Harry


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Baxter, William
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Beaney, Alan
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Deakins, Eric
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Bishop, E. S.
Dempsey, James
Hardy, Peter


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Doig, Peter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Booth, Albert
Dormand, J. D.
Hattersley, Roy


Bradley, Tom
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Heffer, Eric S.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Driberg, Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Dunn, James A
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Buchan, Norman
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Edwards, Robert (B[...]ston)
Hunter, Adam


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ellis, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Evans, Fred
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ewing, Harry
John, Brynmor


Cant, R. B.
Faulds, Andrew
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)




Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Moyle, Roland
Sillars, James


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Oakes, Gordon
Silverman, Julius


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Ogden, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Kaufman, Gerald
O'Halloran, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Kelley, Richard
O'Malley, Brian
Spearing, Nigel


Kerr, Russell
Orme, Stanley
Spriggs, Leslie


Lambie, David
Oswald, Thomas
Stallard, A. W.


Lamborn, Harry
Palmer, Arthur
Steel, David


Lamond, James
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Latham, Arthur
Pardoe, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lawson, George
Pendry, Tom
Strang, Gavin


Leadbitter, Ted
Pentland, Norman
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Leonard, Dick
Prescott, John
Torney, Tom


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Urwin, T. W.


Lipton, Marcus
Probert, Arthur
Varley, Eric G.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rankin, John
Wainwright, Edwin


McBride, Neil
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McCartney, Hugh
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wallace, George


McGuire, Michael
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Weitzman, David


Mackenzie, Gregor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mackintosh, John P.
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Whitlock, William


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rose, Paul B.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Marsden, F.
Rowlands, Ted
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Sandelson, Neville
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Woof, Robert


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)



Mendelson, John
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Milne, Edward
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Mr. Ernest Perry.


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Eyre, Reginald
Kirk, Peter


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Farr, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Astor, John
Fell, Anthony
Knox, David


Atkins, Humphrey
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lambton, Lord


Awdry, Daniel
Fidler, Michael
Lamont, Norman


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fortescue, Tim
Le Merchant, Spencer


Balniel, Rt. Hon. Lord
Fowler, Norman
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fox, Marcus
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Benyon, W.
Gibson-Watt, David
Loveridge, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Biffen, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan
MacArthur, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhew, Victor
McCrindle, R. A.


Blaker, Peter
Gower, Raymond
McLaren, Martin


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Body, Richard
Gray, Hamish
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Maurice (Farnham)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Green, Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marten, Neil


Bowden, Andrew
Grylls, Michael
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bray, Ronald
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Mawby, Ray


Brewis, John
Gurden, Harold
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall-Davis A. G. F.
Miscampbell, Norman


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire,W)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Molyneaux, James


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Burden, F. A.
Havers, Michael
Monro, Hector


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hayhoe, Barney
More, Jasper


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Cary, Sir Robert
Holland, Philip
Morrison, Charles


Chichester-Clark, R
Holt, Miss Mary
Murton, Oscar


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.
Nicholls, Sir Harmer


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Iremonger, T. L.
Normanton, Tom


Cooke, Robert
James, David
Nott, John


Coombs, Derek
Jenkins, Patrick (Woodford)
Onslow, Cranley




Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Costain, A. P.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Orr. Capt. L. P. S.


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby
Osborn, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Ma[...].-Gen.Jack
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Dean, Paul
Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Dixon, Piers
Kilfedder, James
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Dykes, Hugh
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Parkinson, Cecil


Emery, Peter
Kinsey, J. R.
Pink, R. Bonner







Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Simeons, Charles
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Soref, Harold
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Spence, John
Waddington, David


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Sproat, Iain
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Raison, Timothy
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Ward, Dame Irene


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Warren, Kenneth


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Sutcliffe, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Redmond, Robert
Tapsell, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wilkinson, John


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Tebbit, Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Temple, John M.
Woodnutt, Mark


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Worsley, Marcus


Rost, Peter
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Russell, Sir Ronald
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)



St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Scott, Nicholas
Trew, Peter
Mr. Michael Jopling and




Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr. Roland Moyle: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 8, at end insert:
Provided that the admission charge payable in respect of any person in receipt of a National Insurance retirement pension or by any person in receipt of supplementary benefits shall not exceed one penny.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take the following Amendments:
No. 4, in page 1, line 8, at end insert:
But no such charge shall be made for the admission of any officially registered Guide of London.
No. 6, in page 1, line 8, at end insert:
Provided that the admission charge payable in respect of any person under the age of 16 years shall not exceed one penny.
No. 15, in page 1, line 8, at end insert:
Provided that no admission charge shall be payable in respect of any severely disabled person or by a person accompanying him. The definition of 'severely disabled person' for the purposes of this section shall be determined by the trustees or governing body on the advice of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services.

Mr. Moyle: We are in enthusiastic support of Amendment No. 15 in the name of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price). We argued the principle in Committee but on this occasion we will leave to him the pleasure of stating the case for it.
I am lost in wonder and admiration at myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends because of the determination with which we continue to press on the Government improvements to this nasty little Bill in spite of an almost complete lack of encouragement by the Government for

our efforts. The Government richly deserve to face the country with the Bill totally unamended so that the public may know where the true obloquy in this matter should rest.
This is the last and final attempt that we shall make to endeavour to wring some mercy out of the Government for disadvantaged sections of the community. What we seek is a 1p entrance fee for three classes of people who would like to use museums—children under 16 whether accompanied or unaccompanied, pensioners and those in receipt of social security payments at the time of seeking entry to the museum. Perhaps I should join with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) and say that the Opposition are in favour of no charges at all but that if there is to be charging we are in favour of completely free entry for the classes I have mentioned and for many others. However, as we have argued those cases at various times at different stages but have failed to persuade the Government on each, we make this last attempt to persuade them to accept a 1p entry fee.
The Opposition are in a somewhat weaker position in argument than when the Bill was being discussed in Committee. In Committee we were trying to apply Conservative principles and to encourage the Government to apply their own principles to the situation. That was some months ago and Conservative principles are not now as easily discerned as they were last winter. We are now forced to appeal to the Under-Secretary, if he has any sense of nostalgia or any regard for auld lang syne, to advise his colleagues to meet us on this matter. It will be readily appreciated that an appeal to mood does not have


the same strength and foundation as an appeal to principle.
There are now 7½ million people in receipt of a State retirement pension, a substantial section of the population, for one in seven are now above the age of 65. Despite the best attempts of many Governments, there is no doubt that the retirement pension is not sufficient to maintain a high standard of living, and that we all regret. When extra earnings beyond the pension are limited to £7·50 a week and with the present rates of inflation going ahead, the State retirement pension, even with the increase which is coming and with the extra which may be earned, is so small that any increase is bound to create a serious financial problem for those concerned.
At the same time as straitened means, retirement brings psychological problems. I remembered the colourful way in which the Under-Secretary told us how he had been advised to prepare for retirement at the age of 50 and how, when he had realised that he was already 48, he felt limp.

Mr. Faulds: Not limp enough.

Mr. Moyle: He will readily appreciate that the retirement pensioner who at 65 gives up employment and making a contribution to the community often has to face a life of idleness and is psychologically not in a particularly good position to face a number of problems. One of the things that we can do is to encourage pensioners to undertake hobbies and interests in order to fill up what would otherwise be a fairly empty life. The letter mentioned by the hon. Member for Louth illustrated the point remarkably well.
One of the ways in which retired people may spend their leisure time is in visiting museums and art galleries. Given the basic financial situation of the average pensioner at 65, there is no doubt that any extra charges on any activity act as a deterrent to undertaking that activity. That will apply to museums and art galleries as much as to anything else.
The problem will increase, because life expectancy is increasing and the health of the population generally, even at 65, is improving. On top of that, the social mores encourage people to enjoy leisure to a much greater extent. So the prob-

lem will increase and more people will face it.
Under the Government's proposals, I believe that a 5p charge will be levied on retired persons for entry to museums and art galleries. If that is so, I do not see how it can be administratively any more complicated to levy 1p than 5p. On those grounds alone I would expect the Government to concede our case in view of our appeal to their humanity.
6.30 p.m.
The case for people on social security benefits, the second group we are considering, is very similar, particularly at this time. We have a substantial body of unemployment, higher than at any time since before the last world war. There is increasing long-term unemployment and many people are moving from the wage-related unemployment benefits to social security, which is a much less happy way of being unemployed than receiving the unemployment benefit. At that moment of psychological shock such people will find that the Government are levying charges on them for entry to museums and art galleries. The charges will be a financial deterrent, particularly for the large family which, even if it has full earning capacity, is drawing social security benefits. I refer to the poor, large family, which is particularly afflicted with such problems. I am thinking of a mother and father and three, four or five children wishing to go to a museum or art gallery. The charge will be substantial, perhaps 70p, which is bound to be a deterrent to a family at rock bottom, drawing social security benefits and least able to afford that sort of pleasure. The Government should meet our case on this point, because such families are in a severely disadvantaged position.
Finally, we come to persons under 16. Here the argument is slightly different. I suppose that the Government's defence will be that there is provision for students to go to museums by appointment and that there is provision for organised parties to be taken round provided notification is given. I suppose that all of us, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds), can recall that when we were required to study Shakespearean plays in school the consequence was that we never read them


for years afterwards. It may well be that taking organised parties of schoolchildren round museums will not have the effect of encouraging the study of our culture, our art and the other treasures in our galleries that a purely individual approach to museums would have.
What the Government are missing by their arrangements is the element of spontaneity, which is very important to young people. Many young people do not have a particular idea in their head one minute but a minute later are seized with an idea of something they want to do. That idea may well be to go to a gallery or museum straight away. Here again we are dealing with a group that is perennially short of money. The entrance charge which the Government insist on imposing could prove a serious deterrent to young people, because they cannot take advantage of a spontaneous desire to go to a museum or art gallery at the time when that desire is felt. That may deter them from taking an interest in museums and art galleries, from developing an interest in a line of culture, a line of painting or something of that sort that they would otherwise develop. It is a distressing situation into which the Government have brought that group of people in introducing this wretched little Bill.
There is one thing the Under-Secretary can do if he wants to persuade us that what the Government are doing is correct. He should be able to provide us with the financial calculations as a result of which the 5p charge was arrived at. If it was decided to make a concession in charging less than the 10p, how was 5p arrived at as the appropriate figure? How is it that 5p is so important a matter that a 1p charge cannot be conceded? To have the financial calculation would be a great help to anyone on this side of the House who is still struggling to understand the Government's thinking in introducing the Bill.
In view of the Government's determined resistance to all the Amendments, particularly the humanitarian Amendments which we are seeking to make, I am beginning to suspect that financial considerations have little to do with the matter. I am beginning to believe more and more strongly that those who control the activities of the Government

in this matter—I am not necessarily saying that they are in this House—are of the view that the old, the young and the poor are a pretty dreary, dependent sort of group, probably an uncultured lot as well, and that it is better to exclude them from the galleries and museums, so that people whom they imagine to be—

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: With great respect, I suggest that that is not fair. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has done more in two years for the young and old than the Labour Party dreamed of in six years.

Mr. Moyle: We are considering not the problems of social security but the origins of the Bill, which comes from an entirely different Department of the Government. We have pressed our Amendments over and over again in Committee, on Second Reading and again today, getting nowhere, though it is obvious that there is considerable support for our arguments. Indeed, I suspect that many Government supporters approve of our approach. Therefore, we must start looking for alternative solutions to the problem. If the cap does not fit, it is open to the Under-Secretary to deploy his arguments on the matter and seek to establish his case to our satisfaction. But my suspicion about what is behind the Bill is growing stronger as our debates continue.
Is it not remarkable that when the Government have money to hand out to relieve disadvantaged groups there is a substantial and careful means test? Pennies are weighed against shillings here and shillings there, until at last the sum which it is appropriate to give is handed out, after a very careful and prolonged calculation. But when it comes to taking money from people in the Bill, it is done on a broad, sweeping principle. There is no balance of advantage or disadvantage, no consideration of the financial difficulties of the various groups concerned, except in the broadest possible way. That is very significant of the Government's whole approach to the problem. Surely the reverse attitude is the proper one for them to adopt.
We support Amendment No. 15, and our good wishes go to the hon. Member for Eastleigh who tabled it. We shall listen to what he says with great care.


But perhaps I may relieve the Under-Secretary's mind by saying that we feel that the whole matter of this group of Amendments is one for the Government's humanitarianism. If they cannot see their way to assisting the disadvantaged groups of people concerned to a greater extent, they must accept responsibility for that before the people of the country. We hope that our appeal on humanitarian grounds can succeed, but if it fails we shall not divide the House.

Mr. David Price: The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) will forgive me if I do not join him in discussing the pros and cons of Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6. That, I am sure, will be a great relief to the whole House. I shall limit my remarks to my Amendment No. 15. The hon. Member was kind enough to give me a clear run on it, so it will be only fair to him if I concentrate on it.
Amendment No. 15 again raises the question of the disabled, and I make no apology for that. In it, I ask that
no admission charge shall be payable in respect of any severely disabled person or by a person accompanying him".
I realise that this matter was discussed in great detail in the Standing Committee so I shall not go over the general argument when deployed.
I hope that the whole House will agree that disabled citizens should receive special treatment in respect of admission charges, and I ask it to remember that the disabled citizen suffers two obvious disadvantages. The first is his disability, for which society can never adequately compensate him. The second is his economic disabilities. These take form on both sides of the balance sheet. Life is more expensive if one is severely disabled; I can assure hon. Members from my own experience that there is no doubt about that. Life is more expensive. Secondly, if one is fortunate enough to have had the sort of training which means that one's disability does not entirely preclude one from earning, one's potential for earning, given whatever talents one has, is substantially less. One would think that for those two reasons there was a very strong case for giving special treatment to the disabled.
With all respect to those right hon. and hon. Members who in Standing Com-

mittee moved Amendments on very much the same lines, I think that my Amendment has technical merit over some of theirs. I wish to draw the attention of the House and particularly that of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to what I think in all modesty are the merits of my wording.
First, the wording includes all the disabled, not simply those in receipt of constant attendance allowance or those identified by local authorities under Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970. It is all-embracing. I know that in Standing Committee my hon. Friend made quite a bit of the difficulties of these problems of definition. I would also point out in passing that those in receipt of what I call "Mark I" constant attendance allowance are, of all the severely disabled people, probably the least able to go to the museums and art galleries. It is those who are less disabled who are most likely to want to go and to be able to go.
The House will note that my wording includes the disabled citizen and a person accompanying him, but I plead very strongly that it is not just the very severely disabled person who needs someone with him but also those whom I call the active disabled, those who are severely disabled but manage on their own, because the whole approach in modern rehabilitation is to try to get the person in the wheelchair to be independent and not to be restricted because of access, and so on. If our earlier discussion bears fruit and access is improved in our galleries and museums, we will reach a situation, I hope, where the wheelborne citizen will be able to go to a museum or gallery without attendance or help. It is therefore important in regard to charges that we should draw the definition wider. This is my objection to the constant attendance definition.
6.45 p.m.
Again, my Amendment deals with the difficult problem of defining disability. It does so by the very simple device of leaving it to the trustees of each institution to define the severely disabled—with, of course, the proviso that they can get assistance from the Department of Health and Social Security. I believe that we have a very strong precedent in another


field to give us confidence that this definition would work. I refer to the special arrangements which are made by many local authorities for disabled drivers, and I will give an example in London.
We live in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. There the local authority gives any disabled driver parking privileges. The question of defining who is a disabled driver affords, as far as I can see, no difficulty to the borough. Further, and this is very important, the disabled driver is exempt from all parking charges. One knows that when parking meters were first introduced they were a matter of controversy.
I therefore submit that in the case of parking for the disabled the two things that I have been pleading for in relation to museums and galleries are established and are working and that Amendment No. 15 would apply to museums and galleries exactly what is working now by way of parking privileges for the disabled. So I believe that the difficulties of definition which the Standing Committee found would vanish if my hon. Friend were to accept my Amendment.
For these three reasons, therefore, I ask that my very modest proposals be acted upon. If my hon. Friend says, as he said earlier, that this is an enabling Bill and that therefore we do not want to incorporate these words into it but that the spirit of my Amendment will be applied, I shall be quite satisfied. Holy Writ tells us that he who asks shall receive. I have asked on behalf of the disabled: I wait expectantly to receive on their behalf.

Mr. John Fraser: I regard this Bill as one of the meanest and most petty of the Session. Some of the other Measures have been expropriation, but this Bill is just mean and petty.
I want to restrict my remarks to the question of the access to museums and art galleries by the young on an individual basis. It is no use saying that school parties can go in free, for what really matters is that a child who has gone in a school party to a museum shall go back again on his own initiative; something has inspired the imagination and enriched the child's mind, and he wants to go back in his own time on

a Saturday or Sunday and so benefit from what he has learned at school.
We know that no matter how dedicated our teachers may be or how good our schools, there is a financial and cultural poverty which prevents our educational system from achieving what it should. We are constantly faced with the problem of under-achievement by children as a result of environmental deprivation and the financial deprivation of the family, and very often we are seeking to construct an edifice which lacks a foundation either in the school or in the community from which the child comes. In many areas there is multiple deprivation.
The evidence of deprivation preventing achievement at school is now overwhelming. This is particularly true amongst the working class whose members, cut off from the traditional links with culture, come into the city centres. I do not speak here of culture in any airy-fairy sense; I refer to links with tradition. This results most frequently from migration. Whether as a result of industrial revolution or unemployment, people come from one environment to another. They also come from the Commonwealth. These people are cut off from their culture and tradition.
What is needed is a stimulus and motivation to back up what is provided at school. Very often it is simply an absence of books and periodicals in the home that holds back the child from reaching full achievement in school. In a wider sense it results from a lack of stimulus in the community outside, and we have to try and build links between the school and the outside world.
Here we have one working-class inheritance and tradition, and that is free admission to museums and galleries. This is one tradition we have kept. I can remember, as a kid in South Kensington, wandering round the museums from one to another, not going to one for a day but going into the Natural History Museum, the Geological Museum, the Science Museum and the Victoria and Albert, going on from one to another until I found something of interest. It is that culture, that tradition, which is being removed by the Bill. I want to see children going to museums virtually free.
It may be that at first the child is bored, but then he finds something of


interest. It may be a dinosaur or a dinosaur's eggs in the Natural History Museum, it may be a pendulum in the Science Museum, but he finds something that fires his imagination. That will have its effect in the classroom, because his imagination is stimulated and he has a motivation. Every educationist agrees that there has to be motivation in the child. Indeed, the Department of Education knows this and has the schemes of compensatory education in the priority areas and the urban aid schemes. Under urban aid schemes children are taken on projects to museums; they are taken on projects to the seaside. They are taken because the children do not do these things for themselves.
By this Bill the Government are excluding the chance of children achieving their own stimulus and firing their own imaginations by going to museums. A secretary of State for Education who does not allow virtually free admission of children on their own initiative to museums does not deserve the name of Secretary of State for Education but deserves the title, which I think has been earned by this Bill, the title of Treasury bailiff.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I rise again to say that I feel that this Amendment is another compromise. I do not understand the weird rules of the House which make it necessary for something which has failed in Committee to come in the flimsiest of disguises to the Floor of the House. This 1p charge is a flimsy disguise. Lest my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should misunderstand my intentions, I am against charging. I think that 10p was wrong. I think the Opposition are wrong. I did not have the opportunity to say so in Committee.
Suffice it to say that I once again thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for bringing the amount down from 10p to 5p. In that, I feel, I played a small part. I wish it had been brought down from 10p to nothing. Perhaps my hon. Friend even tonight will tell the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) that he is wrong, that 1p is wrong. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will say he is going to bring the amount down to nothing. That would please me, and it would also make the hon. Member for Lewisham, North look wrong.
I cannot add a great deal to the comments by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) because he covered much of what I would have said about education. There is a great deal to be said for the dropper-in, for the casual finder of a museum. That was well expressed by the hon. Member for Norwood. I say that because I sincerely believe that we must have on the record a Conservative who believes this lest at any time people believe that the Bill was a totally party political thing and that people on this side of the House did not feel as strongly about it as do some Members on the Opposition side. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will do me the courtesy of remembering the letter I wrote him and I do not find it necessary to read it out again.
In my opinion, there is no excuse whatever for making the old pay the charges. The people who have the most spare time and the least money are the people the Government have decided to hit hardest. If this is what Conservative caring for is about, and at the last election I thought we did care, I made a bad mistake.
I approve the depth of the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) but I do not dare add to his eloquent speech. He speaks on that subject with knowledge unrivalled in this House and it would be impertinent of me to try to add to his speech.
In the earlier debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, and I do not doubt he will bring it up again, that the old and the young can have special cards and buy season tickets, that they will be able to get in as often as they like at a considerably cheaper rate. I accept that, but this does not allow for the casual person who suddenly discovers that he has arrived at a gallery and would like to go in. The special card or season ticket procedure demands that a person queues up and fills in a form. It does not allow a person, old or young, simply to go into a gallery.
There are those on this side of the House who think that this is wrong. What I am getting at is this. As the hon. Member for Norwood said, freedom of admission is a privilege in this country. It is a privilege worth keeping. An hon.


Member in the last debate laid emphasis on what was not done in other countries and said that we should not do it. I would say that the frightening question is, what comes after museum charges? Are we to have library charges next? I would oppose the Government on that as well. They brought in the milk charge. Is the next step the library charge? We must be careful. Men on this side of the House must stand up and say that we will not support that at the next stage and that it must not be allowed. We on this side of the House must fight again and again to hold back from this sort of charge, for one reason and one reason only: this is a civilised standard we have set, and the fact that other countries do not have it does not mean that we should become uncivilised as well.
I support the hon. Member for Lewisham, North; I support my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh. I want my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to know that there are no circumstances in which I could support the Bill because of the Clauses and Amendments now being discussed.

Mr. William Hannan: Those of us who have heard the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) on this topic before will want to agree with him, and I personally congratulate him on the tenor of his remarks. His sincerity is quite obvious and I do not want to embarrass the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the Under-Secretary will refer to the remarks with which the hon. Gentleman has just concluded.
I listened with sympathy to what the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) had to say, but it appeared at one point that he was using against the argument of my hon. Friends the reductio ad absurdum argument to bring our proposals into disrepute.
The Bill is a small, shabby, niggling Bill which will raise less than £1 million, and what the Under-Secretary and the Government have undergone in this process is nobody's business.
I want to dwell on the proposal as it affects old people. There are 7½ million pensioners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) said. One of my own friends, when he retired on his national pension and his

own superannuation, said he was about to enter upon the best job he had ever had—that of retirement; he was now going to have time in a constructive fashion to do those things which throughout his lifetime he had wanted to do. Considering all that was said in the speeches at the two parties' conferences during the last two weeks, speeches about the better quality of life, I should have thought that here was a constructive opportunity for the Government to do something about it. The hon. Member for Louth could help them in selling to the community, including the retired community, the advantages of greater use of our museums and galleries.
7.0 p.m.
In an earlier debate the Under-Secretary of State seemed to express horror that the taxpayer should be asked to foot the bill. My response to that is to ask "Why not?" If the local ratepayers of Glasgow and many other of our good cities can provide these facilities on the rates, with free entry, and with as good a showing of French paintings as can be seen anywhere else in the country, why should they not do so? Why impose a miserable charge like this and make a visit to a museum or gallery into a hardship for so many people?
I am encouraged to go further in this argument because of the Question addressed to the Prime Minister by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). He asked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been drawn to the publication "Social Trends", in which it was pointed out that a contributory factor to present-day unemployment was the decreasing amount of time needed to produce the same amount of goods. The argument is that if in future we are to have increased leisure, with increased holidays and shorter working weeks, is it not part of our social policy to encourage people to employ their leisure in an attractive and reasonable fashion rather than merely provide more in the way of the candy-floss society—beer, betting and bingo?
The Government, by forcing through this tawdry little Bill, are thwarting the best efforts of our social workers and others who accept the point of view I am trying to express. We on this side are in principle against any charges, but if there must be charges it is surely not too


late to make an exemption in the case of the retired and for the Government by deliberate action to encourage retired people to direct their attention to a greater degree to the facilities available to them, thus employing their leisure in a constructive fashion.

Mr. Joseph Harper: I wholeheartedly support the Amendments. We have been discussing the Bill since 17th February. It came out of Standing Committee on 16th March. As time went on, we on this side were hoping that the Government had decided to drop the Bill altogether. We had high hopes a month or two ago that that would be so. Unfortunately, it has come back to life and we are stuck with it.
Every conceivable argument has been adduced against the Bill from both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) has made two fine and important speeches today. These Amendments deal with the old, the young—the very young—and the disabled. I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) said about the disabled. I come from the coal mining industry, which has far above the normal ratio of disabled in the working population. I also endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about disablement being expensive. No one without practical experience knows just how expensive disablement is.
In Committee I got the impression that the Under-Secretary of State—he is only doing what he is told—did not accept the Amendment concerning the admission of the disabled which we had then tabled because if we allowed the disabled free entry the question arose of whether the person taking a disabled person in should be charged or whether that person get in free as well. If that is the only barrier to accepting the principle of free entry for the disabled, as far as I am concerned both the disabled person and the person accompanying him should get in free, because the person accompanying him is doing a service in enabling that disabled person to visit a museum or gallery.
With regard to retirement pensioners, especially those on supplementary benefit, who are by and large the worst-off group of pensioners, I would agree more with the hon. Member for Louth. As I have

said, we on this side would prefer no charges at all, but once we start to make charges and part charges we begin to differentiate. But differentiation in effect projects the concept of the second-class citizen. I am against that. I was not very popular for it but I was against old people having to go through a special gate at a football match in order to get in at a reduced price. The same applies to concessionary fares. The same principle applies more recently to the question of television licences. All hon. Members have been inundated with requests to try to get the television licence for a retired person down to 5p. I deplore the whole system but the fact remains that until we get proper pensions for old people—I am not being political, because none of us has done enough, however much we have shouted at elections—we have to rely on fringe benefits in order to make the lot of the old person a little more comfortable.
There are over seven and a half million old-age pensioners. Not all of them want to visit museums and galleries, but many of them do. The hon. Member for Louth quoted a letter from a constituent aged 83 who deplored the Bill. I deplore the fact that we are now going to charge, especially for old people.
But even more important than the old people in this context, important as they are, are the young because they are the citizens of the future. When we get topside of 40—I am quite a bit older than that—we begin to deplore the fact that our kids are not as good as we were, despite all the evidence to the contrary. We condemn them for their long hair and their clothes. We are apt to say that they are not deserving. Of course, Socrates said it in the fourth century before Christ, so the idea is not quite correct.
I, too, have a letter here. I shall not quote it because it is rather long. It is well written and it starts, "Dear Joe", so that indicates that the writer knows me. He had read one of the Standing Committee Reports and wanted to acquaint me of his experience in this matter. This young man left school at the age of 16. He went to work in a factory but did not like that overmuch, so he left to work in a brewery. [Laughter.] It seems facetious but it is true. One of his jobs at the brewery was to take deeds to the local solicitors in Birmingham for signature. He was often told by the solicitors, "You


can come back in half an hour for the deeds."
On one of these trips he saw an art gallery. Not knowing anything about these matters and in order to pass the time, he went in because it was free and it was also warm. There he was so captivated by the paintings that he started taking an interest in art, culture and history. Now he is the head of a college department. What is more, he is studying assiduously for an Open University degree. All that happened because he saw an art gallery which did not charge for admission.
My correspondent makes the point that he, like so many of us, has visited art galleries in Florence, Amsterdam, Paris and elsewhere, adding the important reminder—which is the nub of our discussion—that if he had been an Italian, a Dutchman or a Frenchman he would still be working in the brewery because in all those countries charges are made for admission to galleries and museums and he would not have gone in when he had that time to spare.
It is all very well for the Under-Secretary to state as part of his case that other countries make charges. So what? I have always thought that in this respect at least we were one up or even two or three up on other countries and that eventually, if we were to continue with no charges, especially when we got into the Common Market, they themselves might eliminate charges.
No one who has never been culturally deprived knows what it really means. In other words, if one has never been hungry one does not know what it is to suffer from hunger. This is a different kind of hunger but it is nevertheless a hunger. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, after the many weeks we spent in Committee on this problem and in view of the fine speeches made from his own side of the House, will now decide to accept these Amendments.

Mr. Alfred Morris: These are extremely important Amendments. As the House knows, I have a deep personal interest in the purpose of Amendment No. 16. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) has made an eloquent submission in its support and in support also

of Amendment No. 17. The hon. Gentleman is informed by personal experience of the problems of severe disablement in his own family. Few of us on either side of the House can speak with more feeling about the importance of the Amendments.
All of us on both sides have declared our intention to allow the severely disabled to live more normal lives. Let us not now depart from the purpose we expressed in enacting the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970. Those of whom we speak in Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are the blind, the deaf, the dumb or those who are otherwise permanently and substantially handicapped, by reason of illness, injury or congenital deformity.
The Under-Secretary must know that every organisation working for the welfare of severely disabled people wants to see this group of Amendments succeed this evening. I appeal to him to consider carefully the arguments which have been adduced from both sides of the House.
The hon. Gentleman has heard a strong and compelling case from two of his hon. Friends, namely, the hon. Member for Eastleigh and the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer). Very little public money is involved in conceding their case. However, a great deal of happiness is involved for a large number of people in contemporary Britain. I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to respond constructively to the powerful case which has been made from all parts of the House. I hope that he will not let the House down by resisting these Amendments.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I gladly respond to the spirit of the speech made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) and I hope that, in part at least, when I have completed my remarks it will be felt that I have tried to respond.
There are four groups of people about whom we are talking in this debate. No mention has been made of those referred to in Amendment No. 4, but I shall mention them in a few moments. I am now referring to those mentioned in Amendment No. 5. I feel strongly about one group of people in this category in an absolutely contrary sense to the view


expressed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle). I refer to those on supplementary benefit. In Committee the hon. Gentleman was generous enough to concede that to seek to make persons on supplementary benefit identify themselves ran contrary to the general stream of all we have tried to do on both sides of the House about these benefits.
One of the advantages of the proposals in the Green Paper issued by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that they are one further move in the same direction, and I find this a very attractive attitude. To envisage that entry to a museum or gallery should be reduced, in this case, to 1p for people who, perhaps for a short period of time, shall identify themselves as receiving supplementary benefit is quite unacceptable to me, and I am sure that it would be unacceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer). I cannot believe that that is right and I am sorry that this idea has been persevered with since I believe that it is a wrong judgment.
I appreciate that there is an argument in respect of the retirement pensioner. Although there is no rule never to alter the situation, it has been our general practice to make concessions for the retired pensioner—concessions which are already in the proposed scheme, but not in the Bill because the Bill does not deal with them—and it has generally been our practice to make these concessions in other analogous fields by reference to a reduction.
Let us take as an example the bus fare. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North did not do himself justice by his unhappy suggestion that the object of these charges is in some way to keep out old people. This was an unreasonable allegation and, on reflection, I do not think the hon. Gentleman will want to pursue it. Nobody suggested that the system of charging on buses was designed to keep old people off buses. The object of the campaign for concessions for old people was the other way round. The object of that campaign was to give them benefits rather than to keep them off the buses or, as in this case, out of the galleries and museums; it was understood that their incomes were lower. But we must remember that the word "pen-

sioner" to-day embraces potentially the whole population. Furthermore, we did not give free bus fares, nor did we give free cinema provision; we gave concessionary rates. It is a matter of judgment whether one says that half price is reasonable or that the charge should be 1p.
We on this side of the House have shown our understanding of, and concern for, the old in making concerns which provide for a charge of 5p which, at the height of the season, represents a quarter price since in summer the costs for everybody else are very much higher. We have paid due observance to the circumstances by making a concession of half price. Therefore, it is not reasonable or consistent with what we have done in the past elsewhere to go any further.
I turn to the situation as it affects young people. I am conscious of my duties towards the young, and I feel these matters strongly. I am entitled to repeat that it is very important in educational terms that we have secured totally free entry—as was acknowledged, though not very graciously by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) for organised small parties.

M. John Fraser: The hon. Gentleman means that the Government have not taken anything away from those people.

Mr. van Straubenzee: There is completely free entry for organised parties and all the best evidence from the Inspectorate, who have no axe to grind, is that this is the right way to approach the matter. Indeed, I wish to see it greatly extended. As I said in Committee, one of the great difficulties in terms of the constrictions on space and building at present is that we dare not harness all that is available to us in educational and other terms—for example, through the media of radio and television. This is a powerful reason for getting on with the immense building programme now under way.
We have rightly watched the educational case in terms of the accredited students who are important persons in terms of specialised needs. That student is also catered for. Therefore, it is again a matter of judgment.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Norwood is up to date about the


spending power of the modern young. When we talk about "half price" we must keep up with the times. I encouraged a little hostility in Committee when I went to look at the Science Museum. I looked at the price of ice cream being sold outside the museum and found, to my horror, that an ice cream cone, of which I am rather fond when I can get under the wing of my doctor, would have cost me 10p. Had I wanted to be a real devil and have an ice cream covered in chocolate flake, I would have had to pay 20p. I put this forward as background information, having when young entered into a competition and got myself up to 83 ice creams in one day. Therefore, in talking about the young—I am not referring to the rich young person but about working class children—we have to set the consideration against the charge of 5p, particularly when we have taken so much trouble on the strictly educational front.

Mr. John Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that some children would rather spend 5p on an ice cream than the same sum on going into a museum, he does not understand the whole problem of compensatory education.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I understand it, but I also understand that a large number of people think that if a choice is to be made they do not think that they should underwrite it.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: In my speech I tried to ask my hon. Friend how he accounted for the child who refused to pay 5p to enter a gallery or museum, but who if the charge did not exist might drift into a museum and discover what a silly boy he was not to have wanted to pay the 5p in the first place. That boy will not now drift into a museum because his stupidity will stop him doing so. We shall never allow his stupidity to become enlightened.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The answer in part—and I could not possibly cover every contingency relating to every person—will be an increasingly higher standard of education, in the sense that I hope we shall make use more and more of museums and galleries for instructional purposes. I believe that the silly

boy mentioned by my hon. Friend will increasingly have the impetus to go to a museum, and I am seeking to say that he will go at a charge of 5p. I appreciate that it is a matter of judgment. I do not see why, having made rightful provision for free entry in educational terms, it is reasonable for the general body of taxpayers to underwrite him totally. But I repeat that it is a matter of judgment.
Let us consider the third category, the disabled, about whom we have heard two powerful and effective speeches. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) did not do me justice in terms of our discussions at an earlier stage. We had established that a person attending a disabled person in a chair did not pay, in the sense that it was unacceptable that a person needing to be pushed had to pay double. I was most anxious to find a way of assessing the situation in regard to the disabled, and I believe I was able to say that the method suggested in Committee, namely that of tying it to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was not an effective method of undertaking it. I think that both sides of the Committee thought it right in that sense. I hope that we have found a method of covering the situation which I hope will be understood.
Let us take as our base line the National Assistance Act, 1948, and I emphasise that what I am now going to say has no relation to National Assistance. If we take the definition in Section 29 of that Act, particularly the register, I know we have an ascertainable group. Furthermore, it has the advantage that it is wider than my hon. Friend's drafting. Indeed, I think that it is better. I say that with no arrogance, because I have been assisted in a way that he was not.
7.30 p.m.
Would it be fair to place upon the trustees the responsibility of making decisions as between one disablement and another? On reflection, my hon. Friend may feel that would not be a very happy method.
Disabled people on that register will have the same concession as the other categories for whom we are making concessions—namely, the half or quarter price at the height of the summer months. For example, a person in a wheelchair


who needs someone to assist him will come in for the 5p standard charge and the person accompanying him will not have to pay.
I hope that displays the appropriate consciousness of our obligations to the disabled which I was asked to show. Of course, it will appear not in the Bill, but in the administrative arrangements. That is why technically I am rejecting the Amendment. I reject it because the Bill is not the right place. I am accepting the spirit of the Amendment and, I hope, going a long way to meet the lobby concerned which is a very powerful and proper lobby.
Lastly, I come to the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward).

Dame Irene Ward: I did not quite understand why the Guides of London, who are paid, were being brought into the section dealing with all these very important people—the disabled, the old and the young. Therefore, I did not, in specific terms, move my Amendment. So, whatever my hon. Friend says, I warn him that if I catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye, I shall make my speech on the Guides of London. Perhaps my hon. Friend would then care to reply.
It seems most extraordinary that guides, who have nothing to do with the groups we have been discussing, should be included. I feel like Alice in Wonderland. Something has got up and hit me in the face. Therefore, perhaps my hon. Friend could leave that point, deal with these other important groups, and allow me to make my speech after that, because that is what I understood would happen. Of course, one is never quite certain in Parliament whether one understands things rightly or not. At any rate, I understood it wrongly, and I should like to make my speech about what my colleagues and I think about the Guides of London.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that explanation. Therefore, I shall make no reference to the Guides of London. If I meet no resistance from either the Chair or the House, I shall seek to answer my hon Friend specifically on that point.

Mr. Ernle Money: Will my hon. Friend clarify one point? Did he say 83 ice creams?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I will discuss that more with my hon. Friend, but the ruin is in front of him for all to see.
I know this is a matter of argument, but I genuinely believe that we have done appropriately by the old and the young who are not going in educationally. I have sought to find, and tried conscientiously to find in Committee, an equally appropriate way in caring for the disabled in this respect.

Mr. David Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am grateful for what he has been able to do for the disabled? Although I was arguing for a nil charge, as he is charging 5p for the old, I think many of the disabled would feel it is appropriate that they should pay 5p, given the concession for persons accompanying them. However, we still look forward to the day when the old and the disabled get in free.

Dame Irene Ward: For a very long time there has been an all-party Committee attached to the House of Commons which is concerned with an important body known as the guides of London. The guides of London are remarkable people. They have to take very enlightening and difficult courses to qualify to be registered as guides. They have special badges and must have considerable qualifications. They have been a great asset in showing the treasures of London to tourists and other bodies, giving specific details of the treasures which we have to display.
The chairman of this Committee is my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). The Committee regularly meets the guides. We know of their interest, knowledge and enthusiasm. A great deal of their work is connected with foreign languages, which many of them speak.
As soon as the Bill was introduced and it looked as though it would become the law of the land, representations were made asking that the guides be precluded from having to pay when conducting parties into the various museums, galleries and buildings for which charges are made.


We were told that this would not be possible. This was met with great regret by those who have knowledge of the quality of the guides of London.
It seems most extraordinary that when a person has paid for courses, qualified, and become a representative of a body, for which those who employ the guides have to pay, the individual concerned should pay a museum and gallery charge. The Committee, which has a very good body of presidents and vice-presidents—I happen to be a vice-president representing my party—thought it most extraordinary.
A great deal has been said about what goes on in Europe. I understand that legitimate, recognised, qualified guides in Europe—of course, ours are registered under the tourism business—do not have to pay entrance charges. It seems to me most extraordinary that on this relatively small matter my Government, who were and are enthusiastic about entering Europe, should want to go contrary to the European system. But the British are never consistent. In my view, no Government are consistent. I think my Government can be as inconsistent as the Labour Government were. It seemed to us extraordinary that these highly qualified individuals, who were recognised as such by the tourist industry, and in respect of whom the tourist industry asked the Government to take action, should be expected to pay an entrance fee to museums and galleries.
We have continued to make our representations. On the last series of Amendments my hon. Friend was most helpful, for which I am very much obliged because I support what has been said about the disabled. I do not think that my hon. Friend would have left this group of people to the end if he had meant to say "No", because that would be bad psychology. Whether or not one agrees with my hon. Friend, on most subjects he is a pretty good psychologist. It is no good being in politics if one is not psychologist, and I therefore do not think that he would have left this group of people to the last if he was going to refuse our request.
I did not know that the Amendment was in my name. I happened to be looking at the Notice Paper to see what

Amendments had been tabled, and I noticed this Amendment in my name. I am delighted that somebody thought of putting it down. One never knows what is going to happen in this place and when I saw the Amendment I hoped that the House would excuse my not making a long speech because I cannot remember all the facts and figures anyway.
This is a good cause. We do not want the Guides of London to have to pay an entrance fee to museums and galleries. Those connected with the committees to which I have referred do not want these guides to have to pay this charge. The London Tourist Board does not want to have to pay the charge. Having got to almost the last group of Amendments my hon. Friend must be in a benevolent frame of mind, and I hope that he will accept my suggestion.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I join the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) in acknowledging the concession which the Minister has announced for the severely disabled. This is a step forward, and I thank the Minister for his gesture, just as I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh and my right hon. and hon. Friends for the pressure which they have exerted on the Government.
If there is any difficulty of definition of entitlement, the Minister may like to look at Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, which provides a means by which the Secretary of State for Social Services can resolve any difficulties of interpretation or definition arising from the provisions of Section 29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948.
I feel sure that the definition suggested by the Minister will work reasonably well and that his statement tonight will be widely welcomed by those who, in organisations throughout the country, work for the welfare of disabled people.

Mr. van Straubenzee: With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, may I first thank the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) for his kind references to me. To the best of my understanding the method suggested, tied to the register, with a statement to that effect, will be sufficient, but I am obliged to the hon.


Gentleman. I shall examine what he said in case it may go yet further towards tying the matter up.
7.45 p.m.
The last thing that I have to answer is the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), and I have to let her into a little secret. As the House knows, I am inexperienced as a Minister. I have here some notes which, as happens from time to time, say "Resist", but I must concede that I can no longer resist the case put forward by my hon. Friend. She has persevered admirably, and she did not do herself sufficient justice because she did not tell the House that during the Recess, and so on, she has continued the argument in correspondence. I speak as a junior Minister who has to sign quite a number of letters, and I can tell the House that there is no more persistent Member than my hon. Friend when she thinks she is on the right track on behalf of her constituents or for any other cause. I am therefore willingly prepared to make a change in this respect.

Dame Irene Ward: I thank my hon. Friend.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The administrative arrangements will follow consultation with the trustees, and the Government are prepared to propose that guides who are examined and registered by the London Tourist Board should be admitted free to museums and galleries on presentation of their registration card and official badge. Parallel arrangements will be made for Edinburgh and Cardiff.
The case has been made not so much on grounds of finance as on the status of and work done by these people. My hon. Friend has been very persuasive, and I willingly make it clear to her that what she wants in terms of the Amendment will be reflected in the arrangements to be made once the Bill becomes law.

Dame Irene Ward: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 1, line 24 at end insert:
'and shall lay before Parliament a statement as to the views expressed by such governing body'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I think that it will be convenient if with this Amendment we take the following Amendments:
No. 12, in page 1, line 16 after 'State'. Insert:
'and of the governing body concerned'.
No. 13, in page 1, line 22 at end insert:
Provided that the parties to any such contract trust deed or other instrument concur in such variation or revocation.

Mr. Smith: These Amendments relate to a part of the Bill which has not received as much attention in the House as the earlier part. They relate to subsection (2) of Clause 1.
Broadly, what the Government have proposed—and I put this forward as background material so that the House will understand the Amendments—is that the Secretary of State for Scotland should have power to make an order varying the provisions of a trust deed or other instrument which are inconsistent with the making of charges. This is an important principle and an attempt was made in Committee to amend the Bill.
The principal ground of objection put forward forcefully by the Opposition in Committee was that it was wrong for the Government to seek power to vary the provisions of contracts, trust deeds or other legal instruments which stipulated that a gallery given a gift should exhibit it free to the public. This is not an academic argument because, in the context of the National Gallery of Scotland, the Erskine of Torrie Collection and the Vaughan Bequest relating to the Turner pictures are both affected by this provision.
Amendment No. 13 seeks to put some restriction on the power of the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a varying order by saying that he should do it only with the consent of the parties to the legal instrument. What the Government are seeking to do is nothing less than legal vandalism. They are trying to tear up the provisions of trust deeds which lay down specifically that gifts are to be shown free to members of the public. This arbitrary power is a piece of legal destructiveness which will tear out of the provisions of legal instruments the very thing which the makers of gifts wished to see enshrined for posterity.


Many people make it a solemn condition of a gift that it is to be shown free. The Erskine of Torrie Collection lays down that the pictures are to be shown free and also that if they are shown with other pictures, they too should be shown free of charge. In this case, however, the Secretary of State takes power to destroy such a provision through exercise of his order-making power.
This will not apply merely to old bequests such as those I have mentioned. It would apply to any one making a gift now to the national galleries of Scotland. Any person who seeks to put a provision in a trust deed that a gift which he makes to the National Gallery shall be shown free to the public cannot rely upon that condition being put into effect by the trustees because the Secretary of State may at any time, in effect, tear up that condition.
This is a serious matter. It might well affect the attitude of people who might be disposed to make bequests of pictures to the National Gallery. It would be a most regrettable step if it had the effect of discouraging people from making such gifts. For instance, the owner of important works of art who wishes that they should be enjoyed by the public after his death may prefer to make his donation to a municipal gallery where his wishes would be respected rather than to the National Gallery where the Secretary of State can step in and tear up the provisions of his trust deed.
The Bill has been described on occasion as an enabling Bill. In many respects it is a disabling Bill. It disables the trustees from carrying out the conditions upon which their predecessors accepted many gifts. In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Gardiner said that he thought this provision in the Bill created a situation both illegal and dishonourable. It is certainly dishonourable to take powers to defeat the high public-spirited intention of people who make bequests to our National Gallery by giving the Secretary of State power to avoid the conditions in the relevant trust deeds.
It is a simple point. I am sure that there are many people who wish that the Government had not sought this power. But since they want to have

charges imposed at our national galleries, they had to take steps to vary the constitutions of the galleries. Then they came up against the problem of the trusts, and they had to take power to vary the trusts as well.
It has been said in the Government's defence that there is a precedent for what they propose to do. The Lord Advocate and I had a long argument about this in Committee. In my submission, there is no proper precedent for it. The precedents to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred—namely, certain provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1962—are not apt because in that case it is clearly said that attention must be paid by the Secretary of State to the intentions of the people who made the bequests which are affected by that Act. There is no such qualifying provision in the present Bill.
Undoubtedly, this part of the Bill is repugnant to the trustees of our national galleries. In their 1971 report, the trustees of the national galleries of Scotland made clear their objection to what they call
 … the conditions of past benefactions … overruled by Order under the new legislation.
Many of the trustees felt that they were being put in the position of being forced, by order of the Secretary of State, to dishonour provisions which they had accepted in respect of gifts made to them by many benefactors.
A great number of the pictures in our National Gallery arrived there by bequest rather than by purchase. I am sure that the trustees will feel that what the Government propose will be an impediment to their obtaining further bequests. I hope that that does not turn out to be the case, but I fear that it may.
Now that the Bill has reached this stage, the best that the Opposition can do is to try to insert a provision which will minimise the damage that is likely to be done. Amendment No. 13 is designed to do that by making it a condition of his exercise of the order-making power that the Secretary of State shall be able to proceed in that way only if the parties concerned concur in the variation or revocation. This would give the trustees some lever in their arguments with the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 14 would require the Government to lay before Parliament a statement of the views expressed by a governing body when the Secretary of State proposed to make a change. One concession which the Government made in Committee was to allow a statutory consultation with the governing body of a gallery before making any change under the terms of a Bill. Since Parliament has power by negative resolution to overrule the Secretary of State and refuse legislative sanction to an order, it would be useful if it knew clearly what the trustees' views were before exercising its powers under the negative resolution procedure. If that were done, it would become clear that the trustees regarded this whole operation on the part of the Government as dishonourable and repugnant. The best the Government can do at this stage is to accept these Amendments.
I do not wish to say anything about Amendment No. 12. On reflection, I do not think that it is an important Amendment. But if the Government were prepared to consider Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 they would go a little way to minimise the dreadful damage which may be done by this part of the Bill. In many ways it is the worst feature of the Bill. It has encountered stout opposition from this side of the House and stout opposition from the trustees of all the galleries. It has been a little overshadowed by the question of charges themselves, but it is in itself a disgraceful provision which the House should not accept.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Norman Wylie): This short debate has followed the lines of our earlier debate in Committee. I note what the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) said about Amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 13, as he well knows, would have virtually the same effect as one of the Amendments—Nos. 27 and 28, I think—which were discussed in Committee. Those Amendments related to the variation of trust deeds being prompted only at the initiative of the governing body, and the effect of Amendment No. 13, which would require the concurrence of the governing body, would be to produce the same result.
The hon. Gentleman must face up to the logic of Clause 1(2). He understands the position very well. Indeed, I thought

that he would make a complete concession and agree that the provisions in subsection (2) were necessary, standing the principle enunciated in subsection (1), since, as he said a moment ago, once the decision is taken to make museum and gallery charges, standing the fact that there are provisions in certain deeds, to some of which he referred, which conflict with that principle, some machinery must be evolved to deal with that conflict. This is as much in the interests of the governing bodies themselves as of anyone else, for if a governing body makes charges—or, as the hon. Gentleman would fairly prefer to put it, is forced to make charges as a result of Government policy in this matter—unless something is done to vary the conditions or, in certain cases, perhaps, to revoke them altogether, the trustees themselves would be open to criticism and, possibly, legal action. Some machinery must, therefore, be devised to deal with that conflict flowing from the principle enunciated in subsection (1).
Although, in his usual way, the hon. Gentleman wrapped up his proposals in such a way as to create the impression that they were only marginal in effect, they would, as he knows, completely destroy the machinery which subsection (2) sets out. If the governing body has to give its concurrence—I am referring now to Amendment No. 13—the Secretary of State is, in effect, precluded from taking the necessary action in respect of prior deeds which is required as a result of the decision to make museum charges.
8.0 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman referred to our discussion in Committee on precedent. I am sorry that he adheres to the view that the precedent which was quoted is not a proper one. That is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman referred today, as he did in Committee, to what is set out in Section 118 of the 1962 Act and pointed out, as is the case, that, where educational endowments are being varied which are not related to grant aided colleges, the Secretary of State must have regard under subsection (2) to the wishes of the testator.
That is perfectly correct. We are not dealing here simply with funds. We are dealing here with museums and galleries, and the proper analogy is not Section 118 but the precedent that I quoted on Second


Reading and in Committee, namely, the precedent set by Section 81 of that Act as it was amended by the 1969 Act.
I do not wish to take up too much time, but I want to put this on record as a proper precedent which has received careful consideration in the light of all that was said on Second Reading and in Committee. Section 81 of the Education Act provided that the Secretary of State is given power in the case of grant-aided colleges to make regulations. The regulations which the Secretary of State is empowered to make cover a very wide field, a much wider field than that with which we are dealing. We are dealing in the Bill with museum charges and regulations which are required to vary prior deeds as a result of those charges. The regulations that the Secretary of State is entitled to make under Section 81 are very wide indeed and, for interest, include regulations about making provision with regard to fees and other payments.
The important analogy arises in subsection (4)(c) of that Section which says:
Regulations made under subsection (1) . . may—
(c) vary or revoke the provisions of any enactment (including any regulations under subsection (2) …), scheme, articles of association, trust deed or other instrument related to any grant-aided college to which the regulations apply, in so far as those provisions are, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, inconsistent with the regulations.
That was the pattern on which this subsection (2) is based.
The draftsman drew this subsection from Section 81(4). The analogy is quite clear. It is true that in dealing with educational endowment funds in the ordinary way the Secretary of State must operate Section 118: he must have regard to the intentions of the testator. There are three grant-aided colleges and colleges of technology of which the governing deed is an endowment scheme under the Education Acts. In one case it is an Act of Parliament. In most cases it is a memorandum and articles of association registered under the Companies Act. In three cases—the Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology in Aberdeen, the Dundee Institute of Art and Technology, and the Paisley College of Technology, the governing deed is an endowment scheme.
In 1969 Parliament did not say that, if trust deeds are to be varied affecting

colleges which proceed on the basis of educational endowments, it must be done under Section 118. Parliament deliberately included in its definition those colleges which I have mentioned which are based on endowment schemes. For the purposes of varying or revoking these trust conditions, the Secretary of State is perfectly entitled to operate under Section 81 and ignore the provisions of Section 118.
Be that as it may, I say after due consideration, discussion and consultation, because no one would take lightly the kind of criticisms that have been repeatedly made about the proposition that I have sought to enforce, that this is precedented. I want to make it perfectly clear once and for all that the provisions of subsection (2) of the Bill proceed on the same kind of basis as the provisions of Section 81 of the Education Act, 1962, as it was revised in 1969, and the similarity in language alone is very pronounced. It is obvious where the draftsman drew his analogy.
There is only one difference which we incorporated in this legislation. We wrote in a statutory duty to consult. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), who was Under-Secretary at the time, repeatedly resisted the Opposition demands for this statutory right to be included in Section 81. I am not saying necessarily that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong. It may be that there was substance in the argument that was adduced that one does not write into Acts of Parliament what Governments do in any case. This was the argument that the Minister in the last Administration put forward.
However, for the avoidance of doubt in the matter and to make the Government's bona fides perfectly clear, we have incorporated a statutory duty to consult before the Secretary of State proceeds by making any orders under this legislation.

Mr. John Smith: So that we can give some validity to this proviso, may I ask whether it is the Government's policy that they will have genuine consultations with the governing body and they contemplate the position that, if a governing body puts good objections to the variation of its trust deed, the Government will


accept the recommendation of the governing body?

The Lord Advocate: The statutory provision is, in statutory form, what every Government, including the last one, exercising statutory powers of this nature always accept, namely, that there is consultation—proper consultation, certainly. It is not a rubber-stamping exercise.
The main purpose of consultation must be to satisfy the Secretary of State that he has properly identified the deeds that require variation. In many cases the governing body may be the only people who can assist the Government on this.
The only difference between these provisions and the provisions on which they were modelled is the one I have mentioned. I am not criticising the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, for whom I have always had and expressed the highest regard. All I am saying is that we have gone further in this subsection to allay fears on this matter than he was prepared to go on the very analogous Section 81 which he enacted in 1969.

Mr. Buchan: I do not want to examine all the references in detail, especially as I do not have them before me.
We cannot get away in the House with trying to defend the indefensible on the grounds that the same tactical procedural measure has been used in different circumstances. It is not good enough to say that, even if the tactical, legalistic precedent has been met, the two agencies may be totally different.
The Lord Advocate has failed to defend this part of the Bill in its own right. I understand his difficulty. He said that, even granting that this provision were bad and monstrous, nevertheless it followed from the previous subsection and, therefore, the Amendment cannot be looked at because this subsection is an inevitable consequence of the first basic subsection.
We have had so many monstrous examples which have been excused only on the ground that they followed from the first main section that it calls into question the first main section. It is not good enough merely to rest on that legalistic ground. Second, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must pay some attention to the views which have been

expressed that this is a kind of legal vandalism.
In relation to another analogous Bill we used the term "a welshing subsection". This is the welshing section of the Bill, because it welshes on all the good faith and philantrophic intentions of so many people. It does something worse, and this is where the Lord Advocate's analogy totally and absolutely falls. The 1969 Act, which he quoted, dealt with an ending situation. The point about this subsection is that it deals with the present and continuing situation, because it will have the effect of damming up the supply of gifts and everything else in the future.

The Lord Advocate: Section 81 could equally well operate in the future.

Mr. Buchan: The Lord Advocate knows the circumstances of the 1969 Act. I repeat what I said, that Section 81 dealt with a past and ending situation. This one is damning the possibility of future bequests of one kind and another. That is the difference and that is why the hon. and learned Gentleman's legalistic argument does not stand.
The third point is that the Lord Advocate said that Amendment No. 13 could not be accepted because it would destroy the basic purpose of the first subsection. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes credit for writing in that the Government will consult the governing body concerned. Either "consultations" means what it says or it does not. The Lord Advocate claims that it means what it says and that the Government shall consult and that, if a case is put forward, the Government may take the view of the governing body. Amendment No. 13 had to be resisted precisely because if the Government took the view of the governing body it would destroy the Bill.
The Lord Advocate cannot have it both ways. By his own argument, lines 23 and 24 would equally make nonsense of the Bill if they really mean that consultations will successfully take place. Either the Lord Advocate is trying to con the country and the trustees with this assurance and it does not mean anything or, if it does, it means that there is no argument on his own terms against


Amendment No. 13 and I hope that he will withdraw his objection to it.

Amendment negatived.

8.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should make clear that the two concessions that the House has accepted tonight concerning disabled persons and guides will apply to Scotland, too, particularly in relation to guides through the scheme that is operated by the Scottish Tourist Board.
The purpose of the Bill is a restricted one, namely, to ensure that the powers of the governing bodies of the national institutions to make charges are adequate. The Bill seeks to do no more than that. The charging itself will be by administrative action and is not in the Bill.
At present the national museums and galleries are financed almost entirely by the taxpayer. Some of the trustee bodies are fortunate in having available to them resources from private trust funds. But the whole of the running expenses of the institutions, and in recent years the whole of the capital expenditure, is met by the taxpayer. The Government have decided that in the interests of limiting the burden on the taxpayer at a time when the institutions require increasing resources that part of the burden—I accept it is a very small part about one-twentieth—should be shifted from the taxpayer to those who actually use and directly benefit from the institutions.
That is the issue at stake. There is no doubt about the pressures on museums and art galleries. For a long time the attendances have been rising, not always constantly but the trend is upwards. I accept there is some doubt about the position in Scotland but this is because of the counting methods that have been used in the past. As the facilities improve, and they will with capital expenditure that is increasing substantially, with new and attractive layouts in museums and galleries, and with special exhibitions and better publicity, I believe that the numbers attending in Scotland will move constantly upwards, on a par with the English and Welsh trend.

Mr. John Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the report issued by the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland which states its belief that the announcement of the admission charges has already led to a drop in people attending the galleries—before charges are imposed?

Mr. Monro: I can only give my own judgment which is that I do not feel that that comment is justified. Tourism continues to expand. The effects of higher standards of education will also be felt. There is no doubt about the widespread demand for improved museums and galleries and the Government are determined to play their part in meeting it.
The acquisition grants of £2 million each year will help to raise the quality of exhibits but the galleries must have additional resources for general expansion, for alterations, new buildings, facilities for the disabled and so on. The introduction of charges will enable the Government in part to provide these, as set out in the White Paper. This is the purpose of the Bill, to give enabling powers to the trustees to charge. It does no more and no less and I commend it to the House.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Faulds: This is a very gymnastic Government. The Prime Minister and his team are renowned for the somersaults they have turned on every aspect of policy. They have stood on their heads on issue after issue. They have tossed aside broken promises like discarded gymslips. On one policy they have stood firm through all the acrobatics. They still intend to bully the trustees of the various museum and gallery boards into introducing charges for admission which will break the traditions of generations of free viewing and which will exclude many people from the educational use and enlightenment of our great heritage of collections.
Against all informed opinion the Government intend to plough ahead with their cultural tax. Regardless of the educational damage these charges will do to the bright and inquiring child, they intend to see that the thirst for knowledge is taxed. The Treasury is to have its whack from the great collections that have been left to the nation by our forebears who realised, as this Government


do not seem to realise, the value of the dissemination of knowledge and who ensured its free availability to all. Now that availability of those collections is to be curbed by the ability to pay. The sad fact is that for all our talk of an affluent society there are many in our midst who simply will not be able to fork out the necessary.
Perhaps if Tory Members had more contact with the poorer sections of our community, the members of society who do not vote Tory, they would understand this. Perhaps in that case they might net even be Tories. It would be fatuous of the Government to pretend that these charges will not affect attendances. They know that in the past charges were levied explicitly for that purpose, to limit attendances, so that the cultural élite could enjoy viewing the galleries without the sweaty press of the hoi-polloi upon them. The Paymaster-General adumbrated this in another place in a debate some months ago.
These charges will lead without any doubt to a fall in attendances, a fact that has already been proved, quite contrary to what the Under-Secretary maintains and very much in line with the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) a moment ago. During the three summer months of June, July and August attendance figures at the National Gallery fell by about 53,000 in comparison with the previous year. Then someone in their administration, deeply concerned at this decline, had the idea of erecting a huge "Admission Free" sign on the façade of the building. We have all seen it. With what result? In September alone there were 37,000 more visitors than in the previous September.
The Scottish experience, which the Under-Secretary ought to know, but apparently does not, underlines this lesson. The annual report of the National Galleries of Scotland for 1971 expressed concern about what it termed "the severe falls" in attendance at its galleries. During 1971 admissions to the Portrait Gallery in Edinburgh dropped by almost half, from 106,712 the previous year to 56,850. But the reduction in the numbers at the Gallery of Modern Art was from 218,728, to 93,812—a really drastic and dramatic fall.

Mr. Monro: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would check on how many months the gallery was closed.

Mr. Faulds: Which gallery?

Mr. Monro: The Gallery of Modern Act.

Mr. Faulds: I cannot off the cuff give the figures. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us the figure.

Mr. Monro: If the hon. Gentleman would give me a second—

Mr. Faulds: Do not bother.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. Having given way the hon. Gentleman must allow the Under-Secretary to make his intervention.

Mr. Monro: The Gallery was closed for three months at the end of last year, and for three months at the beginning of this year.

Mr. Faulds: That might account for some of the fall, but I do not think it accounts for the dramatic and drastic fall I mentioned.
Let me pursue my argument. Mr. Hugh Scrutton, the Director of the National Galleries of Scotland, thought it likely that the public were in a state of confusion about admission charges, and it is not surprising because we have been lumbering on with the debate about these dreary charges for the best part of two years. Mr. Scrutton reported:
There has been some diminution in attendances since admission charges were first proposed. This may well be attributed to people wondering if they have to pay.
Is this the result the noble Lord intended? Is this really what this mistake-prone Government meant to happen? Do they really have to wait for the three years which the Paymaster-General said should pass before the situation is reviewed? Cannot they draw the obvious deductions now about the damage that will be clone to the work of the galleries and museums? They should withdraw the Bill tonight.
This ineffable little Measure—and one could describe it in other terms—the object of widespread and reasoned opposition for a full two years will constitute a classic example of the solemn enactment of humbug, hypocrisy and


double-talk. It brazenly purports—we have only to look at the marginal summary of Clause 1—graciously to confer "Liberty to charge for admission" on such boards of trustees as are impeded by the existing state of the law from doing so. Everyone knows who has followed this debate over these two years that the vast majority of these long-suffering unpaid public servants would be hugely relieved if this whole, thoughtless venture could be consigned to the burning fiery furnace.
The Measure is not mandatory, it does not lay down a legal obligation on the trustees which must be accepted. It takes the cowardly way and adopts the backstairs approach. It contrives to remove such legal protection as some of the institutions happen to enjoy, that is to render them all equally exposed to financial blackmail by an irresponsible Minister. The Government's ideal was enunciated with delighted relish many months ago by that would-be cultural Duce the Paymaster-General. He stated that since the trustees of the national museums and galleries "get all the money from the Government they always agree with the Government." The latter assertion it may be noted is wishful thinking, which events have proved not to be altogether accurate over the last few months.
Trustees have hitherto been seen to occupy an independent position between Government and public, mediators between the one or the other and sometimes deserving the respect of both. The trustees of the future are here billed in this dreary little Measure to he faceless front men of the Government, puppets manipulated by financial leading-strings from behind the scenes, to carry out policies contrary to their beliefs, which is the case with this Bill.
But will the goodwill, and even the prestige, which some trustees have enjoyed with the public and the art world, survive this emasculation of their powers and responsibilities? In the long run it certainly will not. As Lord Gardiner implied most pertinently in another place the recruiting of trustees of real calibre, capable of independent thought and judgment, will become increasingly difficult.
No doubt the more trustees approximate to unpaid sycophantic servitors the better it will suit an arrogant and self-opinionated Minister's book. But it will not redound to the advantage of the institutions and of the general public.
A letter from the Paymaster-General to the chairmen of all the museum boards of 9th December last, and fortunately published in the Press in February, turned out to be a typical exercise in his sort of double-talk in that it allegedly proposed "a major change in the responsibilities of governing bodies", by purporting to give them more liberty, just as this squalid little Bill does. In this process however the Minister contrived to refer to certain powers as "belonging" to the Department which had never done so. This missive which became notorious for its confusion, inaccuracies and its bombast now seems to have become more or less a dead letter. At any rate nothing more has been heard of this "major change".
Since then the relationship between the Paymaster-General and the boards has steadily and constantly deteriorated and has now achieved a record low. It is no secret, indeed it is a matter of common knowledge, that they neither accord him their trust nor retain any respect for his judgment, his ability or even his mere competence.
It is amazing to what lengths arrogance, bluff and obstinacy can take a minor Minister and, more is the pity, in the process, the most serious and lasting damage is sustained by the whole system which we have evolved and inherited. What an epitaph for two years of meddle and muddle, with resort to bullying and blackmail to achieve it. Now the crowning monument to this brash and specious smart-alec is to be enshrined in the British Statute Book—but only temporarily.
I fear it may be too late to suggest that just for once the noble Lord might haul down his false colours and sail his rotten hulk under its true colours. This should not be the Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges) Bill but the Museum Trustees (Facilitation of Financial Blackmail and Debilitation of Powers) Bill. The Government should be ashamed of their obduracy in this matter when they have stood on their head in practically every other. This is a miserable, mean Measure, a damaging Measure, a piteously


ludicrous and petty Bill. Let the House and country be assured that when we come again to Government we shall erase its nasty traces from the Statute Book.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I have always been against the Bill and nothing which I have heard in the Chamber or in Committee has changed my mind. Most of the debates have been concerned with attempts to obtain some form of concession or compromise on the terms of the proposed charges. I have not been interested in those debates because in this case compromise is objectionable. The whole principle of charging, of penalising public access to our cultural heritage, is wrong at the present time.
Obviously we need to spend more money on our cultural heritage and on education for the purpose of appreciating it. It cannot be denied that some part of the public revenue should be devoted to it. In particular, I should like to see more spent upon museums. However, it seems that the Government are endeavouring to make a balance and that having spent so much upon museums there comes a point at which it is not possible to spend more unless there is some compensating revenue which can be derived from charges. The true balance is whether we get as much value out of the money which we spend on museums without charging as we get for equivalent expenditure on other cultural objectives.
Every penny which we spend on museums and public galleries enabling us to give the public free access to them is worth more than every penny spent on the experimental theatre and some of the other objectives of the Arts Council expenditure. Money spent on keeping museums free and open and allowing the public access to pure and wholesome culture is desirable. But it is not right to suggest that once £1 million has been raised from museums it will be possible with good conscience to continue spending millions of £s in other directions which are less worthy.
The maximum which can be raised out of admission charges to museums and public galleries is about £1 million. Any attempt to gain more than that involves

a higher standard rate of admission charge. A higher charge than the 10p or 20p. whatever is proposed under the arrangements, is sure to be a positive deterrent to the public in visiting museums and galleries. We have placed ourselves in a false doctrinaire position whereby it is necessary that there should be some contribution from this source so that more money can be spent elsewhere. We are forgetting the balance of value which is desirable. When one considers the thousands of millions of £s which we are at present expending on public objectives, this is not the time to penalise access to our cultural heritage merely in order to satisfy some sort of principle under which everybody who benefits must in some way pay a surcharge or penalty for the privilege of doing so.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Edelman: In listening to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) I could not help feeling, as on previous occasions, that Orpington had travelled a long way since the days of the late Sir Waldron Smithers. But I could not help hearing a few ghostly echoes of that distinguished voice when the hon. Gentleman started making a false antithesis between his very proper argument in favour of keeping access to museums and galleries free and his attack, as I took it to be, on the work of the Arts Council. The Arts Council has done and continues to do a great deal of good. While this is not the occasion for me to defend it, I would protest against the suggestion that somehow, by defending the principle of free admission to museums and galleries, we should in some way compensate for that by applying restrictions to other worthy purposes.
Indeed, there is a paradox in what the Government are now doing. That paradox is illustrated most clearly by the fact that while on the one hand they are trying to extract £1 million from all classes of visitors to the museums, without hesitation they are spending £250,000 on the "Fanfair to Europe", money which is to be spent within the space of a few days. I declare straight away that I am pro-European and I welcome the fact that our entry into Europe will be appropriately signalled, but I cannot reconcile the fact that the Government—upholding the quality of life, as they purport to do—are spending £250,000 on a single fanfair


while being so ungenerous, mean and parsimonious. I was not surprised that the Under-Secretary moved the Third Reading so perfunctorily. I can well understand that he has no pride in this short, nasty brutish Bill and I can well believe that if he had had the opportunity he would have walked away from it and disowned it, but that was not to be.
The fact remains that we are now approaching the moment when one of the most Philistine and reactionary Measures of all time is to be put on the Statute Book, a Measure that totally reverses the whole process of enlightened thinking for the last 150 years. Studying the evolution of thinking about popular education, from the original Acts dealing with free education and throughout the enactments concerned with free libraries right up to the present-day Education Acts, one sees this single Measure as a reversal of all the principles embodied in that progressive legislation.
It is easy to see how the Bill has come about. In the first champagne flush of Tory victory, the Prime Minister suddenly looked round and asked his various departmental Ministers how they would apply the traditional Tory philosophy. They conjured up the magic figure of one million and, having established that as a target, they sought measures to correspond with that idea. They thought that first they would spend £1 million on the Civil List. They then decided that they would create about a million unemployed. Finally they decided that they would extract £1 million in charges from people going to museums and galleries. In that way they would have three magic millions, which would be their target.
But the noble Lord in another place had overlooked the fact that a revolution had been going on on the benches opposite and those high Tory principles had been reversed. Instead of the old laissez-faire attitudes, laissez-faire attitudes applied with meanness—depriving the children of milk and making them pay more for their school meals—a revolution has been going on by which, instead of trying to extract from the poorer section of the community the means for supporting their more ambitious projects, the Government are now in a position, through legislation such as the Industry Bill, in which they are making

contributions. We are left in the extraordinary position that the Bill is left over from a previous mode of thinking and the unhappy Under-Secretary has the thankless task of trying to justify a Bill of which privately he must be ashamed.
The most evil thing about the Bill is the injury that it will do to young people, for it is the young people who are the inheritors of the past and the trustees of the future. Hitherto, the young generation has had free access to museums and galleries and young people have gone to them sometimes to look at pictures, sometimes to hold hands with girl friends and sometimes even to seek warmth from the wind outside. I am sure that as they have stood in the presence of great works of art their lives have been enriched, in precisely the same way as were the lives of some notable men. I think of men like Henry Moore, for example, who in their autobiographies have explained how in their childhood, often poverty-stricken, the museums and public galleries were places where they could find shelter and have their lives made richer, by being able to contemplate some of the great creations of the past.
Now, suddenly, instead of the worthwhile society, we have the turnstile society. Instead of our having a society in which people could think of ennobling and fulfilling their lives, raising them to a higher power through the greatness which belongs to the nation—certainly not to the Paymaster-General—people find that they are in the presence of barriers. If there is anything which can divide the nation, which can frustrate the ideal of one nation to which members of the Government Front Bench pay lip service—I am not talking about the courageous back benchers—it is the existence of barriers, not even sentimental barriers but physical barriers, between the haves and the have-nots.
It is all very well for the Under-Secretary to talk about the smallness of the charge, to say that 10p or 5p, or even 50p for a season ticket, is no hardship. The fact is that it is. Many people who would like to go to the galleries and museums will be prevented from doing so. It is not just because they cannot raise the 10p but because, as the Under-Secretary must know, when people go to a gallery they like to go accompanied, to share the pleasure of contemplation


with their husbands, wives or children, with their boy friends or girl friends. If the hon. Gentleman went to the Tate Gallery any afternoon he would see dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of young couples who go there to enjoy the opportunity of standing in the presence of great works of art. They are people who will in great measure be deprived of those opportunities. It is no good the backwoodsmen and backwoodswomen inveighing at Tory conferences against the youth of today, complaining of their violence, their irreverence and their lack of manners, when the Tory Government are depriving those young people of the opportunity to enjoy the benevolent influences of the works of art contained in our galleries.
We are reaching a most interesting crisis in the matter of patronage. In the past there were many of us, certainly on this side of the House—and I count myself among them—who felt that when the age of public patronage came the problems of both the artist and the observer would be solved. But not a bit of it. The patronage exercised by the noble Lord the Paymaster-General is of a harsh and unconscionable kind, which so far from enriching the life of the country is impoverishing it, of a kind which, by placing a mercenary and meretricious valuation on matters of access to the heritage of the past, is presenting us with a kind of negative patronage. He as assembled patronage at his hands and has used his power to deprive the nation of the benefits which patronage could offer.
I have already said that tonight we have been debating the nation's heritage, not the Paymaster-General's private collection. We are concerned not simply with the fact that we have a Paymaster-General who in his temporary power is capable of putting down a barrier between the public as a whole and what rightly belongs to them. A museum or an art gallery should not be a place of fossilised relics; it should be a centre of community, a place where people can assemble and communicate with each other, fulfil themselves, open doors to great new vistas for themselves and their families. Every restriction, however petty—and these restrictions are petty—is something which lowers the quality of our national life.
I believe that the Prime Minister himself is one who is concerned with the arts. I am astonished that the Under-Secretary has not yet been advised by the Prime Minister, who has such a deep concern for the art of music, that the plastic arts, too, have their place in the national life. I am surprised that the Prime Minister who very properly, and I certainly would be the last to sneer at him, presents himself to the nation whether he is standing on a podium conducting or whether he is extending his sympathy to musicians, should take such a parochial view. I am astonished that while the right hon. Gentleman gives such encouragmenet to the art of music he should at the same time show such a narrow indifference to the plastic arts which are so much more accessible to so many more people.

Mr. van Straubenzee: It so happens that, under my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's overall direction of course, I have in detail been responsible for the greatly increased grants, the rightly increased grants, to the two Royal Colleges of Music, and the matter is therefore of very great interest and concern to me. I should be very grateful to know the hon. Member's view on the fact that when the products of those two great colleges and they are great, perform for the enormous benefit of us all, none of us contemplates being allowed to go to listen to them for free.

Mr. Edelman: When a musician performs he is not performing as one who has been handed down in person from the past, where he has been paid for, preserved and sheltered in the interests of the nation. The performing musician is quite different from the artefact which belongs to the nation, which is held in trust for the nation and which is a legacy bestowed on the nation. The Under-Secretary uses a completely false analogy and I am afraid that when he uses that kind of bogus analogy, sympathetic though I am to him generally, he and I must part company.
We are dealing tonight with a legacy to the nation. I believe that the Conservative Party is in the process of betraying that legacy and I am glad that my Front Bench has given an assurance that when our party is once more in


power we shall repeal this mean and iniquitous Measure.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Money: The House always listens with interest and respect to the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) and when he spoke just now of the ideal that a museum should be and what it should do to serve, he struck a very warm note for me. It is for that reason that I find it puzzling that so many people in the House whom I admire and respect, including my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer)—

Mr. Faulds: And myself.

Mr. Money: I will reserve my remarks in relation to my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) for a moment—have not faced up to the real crisis that exists in the museum service or borne in mind the real steps that are now being taken to cope with it. Let me say at once that I should have been far happier had it been possible to get this form of money in as is done in the Museum of Modern Art and other American galleries—that is to say, in the form of having a box rattled very heavily in front of the noses of those who go to the gallery. That, in my view, would have been a far more effective way of dealing with this problem.
However, I find it sad that in the emotional problem this has become, and which has reached the epitome of the use of more adjectives by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick this evening than I have every heard him use on any previous occasion—

Mr. Faulds: Appropriate adjectives.

Mr. Money: I do not think the hon. Gentleman ever uses appropriate adjectives though he uses a great many.
However, in the emotional atmosphere, the long-term, basic problem here is being overlooked, and that is that the presentation of the arts in this country is not a static affair. To listen to hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) one would think, I say with respect, from the somewhat narrow legalistic argument he was putting forward, that all one

had to do about any works in public keeping was simply to accept them on behalf of the nation and that that was the end of the day. When he spoke with keen emotion of the national galleries of Scotland, what he did not give full weight to was the fact that large sections of the collections in those galleries, including large parts of the public bequests, cannot be shown very largely because of the inadequate facilities there are to put them properly before the public to whom they belong.
I would ask the House, therefore, this question. Is it worth making some form of sacrifice—and sacrifice, I accept, this is—in order to establish, if this can be the only way of making sure of it, that the Treasury is regularly going to be prepared to degorge, that the advance of a reasonable subsidy to the arts does take place?
That is why I think that the strictures from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, North were a little less than generous when he spoke of the Paymaster-General in terms only of this Bill and did not mention the fact that under his administration more money is being spent on the arts, and in particular more money is being spent on the building programme for the fine arts and the applied arts, than has ever been spent by any Government before.
I come back to what the hon. Gentleman spoke of, and spoke movingly of, the value of a museum as a living project, something which can enrich our lives. So often in the modern State, I believe, that is failing now, because not enough money is being provided and not enough facilities are available. In particular, when one views the building programme which now exists one can see what that will hold out, and I hope there will be adequate money for preserving works of art in the other sense of keeping works of art in this country, and by getting an adequate grant to keep up with the effects which inflation has had. It is against that background that if by this Bill we can make sure that there will be a perpetuation of the tradition that the Treasury will make an adequate contribution, I believe it is reluctantly worth it.
I want to stress one specific matter to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I ask him to bring his influence


to bear on his colleagues in the Treasury with regard to the increasing importance, against this background, of the National Art Collections Fund. I welcome, like others, the concession he was able to make about the disabled, a case close to my own heart as well. Another most valuable concession earlier was with regard to the National Art Collections Fund. But it is surely ridiculous in these circumstances that what should be given with one hand should be taken away with the other in the sense that the fund is now liable to pay value added tax.
This is an age in which, as the hon. Member for Coventry, North rightly reminded us, there are more and wider problems about patronage, particularly with regard to the applied arts, than there have been in previous generations. The National Art Collections Fund needs every sort of support that it can be given, and the best way to do that would be to let it have the full effects of the money it collects, with considerable dedication, from its private supporters and members.
Like the hon. Member for Smethwick, I too pay my small tribute to the great number of public spirited persons who serve our galleries and museums as trustees and in other ways. I hope that after these debates all those concerned with the arts will at any rate appreciate that there is great concern for the future of their institutions, for their work and for the arts generally. I hope that increasingly will come the knowledge that we are to perpetuate the generous principles that were adopted by both parties during and after the war, with the work of Lord Keynes and the founding of the Arts Council, that there has been established in this country something which is to be given permanent and increasing support. I hope that it will be recognised that, whatever bitterness there may have been on this occasion, both parties will continue to support the principle as they have done in the past, and here one also pays tribute to the work of the right hon. and noble Lady, Baroness Lee and to that of my right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster-General. Let it continue to be realised that both Houses of Parliament will make it their duty to get as much money as they can from the Treasury for this great part of the country's life.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) argued that to get money from the Treasury it was necessary to pay it a tribute of £1 million so that it would be prepared to give more money later. I do not want to get involved much in that argument because I want to speak particularly about the Scottish galleries and museums and how they are affected. But it is an odd idea that somehow in the Government there is this institution of the Treasury, totally without political control, to which tribute has to be given before it will give money to the arts. That is simply not the case. If they so willed it, the Government could spend much more money on the arts without having to apply admission charges.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland adopted a wise course in speaking briefly. A Minister can take up one of two positions when faced with the difficulty of defending a Measure like this. He can either speak very briefly or, like the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, get involved in very long and convoluted apologies and analogies for what the Government are seeking to do.
It is unfortunate that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland did not say more about the effect of these charges on the galleries of Scotland. It demonstrates clearly the futility of this operation. It is one thing to impose charges at the Tate Gallery and the National Gallery in London, where there are more than a million visitors a year, but quite another to impose them on the smaller galleries in Edinburgh, for example.
The National Gallery in Edinburgh has about 500,000 visitors a year. The other galleries affected are much smaller. The latest figure for the Gallery of Modern Art is 93,000 visitors a year and for the National Portrait Gallery and the Musuem of Antiquities, which have the same entrance, the figure is about 56,000. I want to show how paltry are the sums that the Government will recover by way of admission charges.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) referred to the cost of collecting admission charges


in respect of the Wallace Collection. The figure was over 30 per cent. and no doubt he thought that was probably the highest figure. In fact, the highest proportion of costs of collection relates to Scotland and its National Portrait Gallery. The Government estimate—this was given in a Parliamentary Answer by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 15th March—that their gross annual receipts for the National Portrait Gallery and Museum of Antiquities will be £5,400. The cost of staff, equipment and amortisation of capital costs is such that the net proceeds, after costs have been taken off the total of admission charges, amount to only £2,960. The cost of collection is 45 per cent.
There should be somebody in the Government who is prepared to tell them when they have reached the stage of absolute absurdity. There can be no defence in terms of introducing charges at a gallery where the cost of collection is as high as 45 per cent. and the net proceeds are under £3,000 a year.
If this were not bad enough, it must be pointed out that the National Gallery of Modern Art will get as gross annual receipts from admission charges only £5,000. Taking into account the cost of collection, which is 27 per cent. the total will amount to only £3,640. This situation beggars belief.

Mr. William Ross: The Government could save that by getting rid of one Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Smith: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) says, by removing one Under-Secretary the Government could pay the cost of these two galleries. The public would thereby benefit in two ways: first by gaining free admission to the galleries, and secondly by not being burdened by another Minister. There are easy solutions to some of these problems if the Government have the will to face up to them.
I quote these figures to show the reductio ad absurdum of the whole proposition when applied to galleries in Scotland. In total the gross figures of receipts in respect of all galleries in Scotland will be about £36,000. It is bad enough to impose these charges to rake in

£1 million in the rest of the United Kingdom, but it is absurd to impose charges on galleries in Edinburgh to rake in only £36,000. In respect of the Gallery of Modern Art there is an admission charge of one-half. We have the ridiculous situation that a child can go into the Botanical Gardens free, but to go into the Gallery of Modern Art he will have to pay 2p entry fee. What an immense amount of administration and staff will be required to collect 2p from a child who goes into that gallery!
These examples demonstrate that this is not a matter of the Government approaching this Measure from any considered view. It is a case of an obsession which took root deep within the Government at an early stage and which is now being pursued like a relentless juggernaut, with absurd results. This is true of the whole of the United Kingdom but the situation as applied to Scotland is even more within the realms of absurdity. If the present Secretary of State and his Ministers had any political guts or gumption they would have seen that Scotland was exempted from the provisions in the Bill.
In the light of the figures I have quoted, there is no reason for Scotland to be subjected to those provisions and there is ample ground for exemption for Scotland. This is a piece of madness which has afflicted the Paymaster-General and its contagion has spread to his colleagues. Nobody in the Government has been prepared to fight the Paymaster-General's obsession over this scheme. I hope that the House will bear these points in mind in regard to Scotland because I regard this as a classic example of a Government which are not prepared to recognise an absurdity when they see one.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I rise to oppose the Bill again. I will try not to rehearse to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State the entire argument since it has been dealt with so ably by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I should like to add one or two comments which have not arisen in this debate.
I, like the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), believe that the Bill was an unfortunate start to Parliament, and that if the Conservative Party


could have its time over again this situation would never have arisen. I may be wrong, but that is my assessment of the situation.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, quite rightly, to his Cabinet colleagues, "We must make cutbacks and must save money". Ministers were called upon to save money in their own Departments and did so. Equally, I believe that there was a cry, "We must bring more money in", and that is how the magic figure of £1 million arose. I am of course surmising completely here, but I believe that it was agreed that in the arts a figure of £1 million must be raised. I do not think they ever said that there must be a 10p charge and that that will total £1 million. I think they said, "The figure we have in mind is £1 million, and therefore there will be a 10p charge".
The tragedy for my party is that this petty little measure will bring in its £1 million, but it will lose us more prestige and good friends in the middle-thinking society than we shall probably lose on any other measure than school milk. For that reason alone I was sorry that we ever saw fit to pursue it.
The Under-Secretary knows that my personal feelings about the Bill are heavily levelled down to the position with the young and the old. I still hope that in his final speech tonight we shall see some change. I still hope that he will find it possible to rise at the Dispatch Box and give back a little. We have all told him that we believe this charge for the young is anti-education in its own way and the charge for the old is a charge on the poorest section of our society with the most time. I have nothing to add to those two cases. I just hope the Under-Secretary will be able to rise at the Dispatch Box and say that the weight of argument has changed the 10p to 5p to nothing. I thank my hon. Friend yet again for having changed it from 10p to 5p during the nine months we have been at work, but I hope that he will yet, even now, be able to bring it down to nothing.
Unusual though it is, I am afraid that I found myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money). I found his arguments facing the wrong direction. When people

left to the nation their great works of art, when they left, as a bequest to the nation rather than to their children, a privilege, they did it because they knew that it was for free and that the rest of the nation could see those works of art. That was the privilege they were able to give. Were many of them alive today, knowing there would be a charge to see those things, they may well think a second time about giving them to the nation.

Mr. Money: My hon. Friend stressed the word "see". Surely he would agree that that is the important thing here. There are large proportions of bequests and other sections of the national collection which cannot be seen at all because of inadequate facilities for display.

Mr. Archer: I agree totally with that argument, but I do not see it as an argument for us collecting money in order that it should be done that way. If there is not enough room to see our works of art, we must build more places for them to he put in.
In the latter part of his argument, which he developed with great sincerity, my hon. Friend said that on balance he would vote for the Bill because, when the money had been collected, it would mean that a few more things could be seen and the whole ambience would be better in which to see them. I accept that argument. What I do not understand is that my Government should put up a higher percentage for the arts, for which I am greatly in praise as I am sure the Opposition are, and at the same time claw back this measly £1 million. I could understand if the Government had kept the amount they gave to the arts the same as under the last Administration, but to put up what was given under the last Administration by vast amounts, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, and then to claw back this measly £1 million is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) suggested, Alice in Wonderland; it is Alice Through the Looking Glass.
The whole thing is wrong. If my hon. Friend is right—he has greater knowledge than I on this subject—we need to build more and let people see more of


the works of art that are underground and hidden, but not at the expense of the old or the young and not at the expense of education. So I am quite unable to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich.
My attitude is one of civilisation. This is a privilege—a heritage I think it was called by the hon. Member for Coventry, North—passed from generation to generation. I suggest, obviously not knowing, that my personal hero in the world of art, Turner, would be appalled to think that his entire collection in the Tate, one of the finest collections of paintings in the world, will now cost 10p per person to be seen. I believe that were he alive and in a position either to withdraw them or to make a speech in this House, he would be the first to insist that something be done.
I want to mention, because so many of the arguments have been so ably and competently rehearsed, the position of the backbencher in relation to the Bill. We have heard it said again and again in this House, and it was tragic to hear the hon. Member for Coventry, North say with sincerity that he was full of respect for the courageous—that was his word—Members on this side of the House who had the courage to fight against the Bill and to abstain or vote against it. What a dreadful time we have reached if backbenchers need courage to vote against a Bill like this. What a time we have reached in this House of Commons that we have become "Yes" men, that we crawl into the corridors whatever and whoever says what. I shall have none of it. I am appalled by this argument.
Many hon. Members seem to have forgotten that half the Members of Disraeli's Cabinet voted against him, and they were not thrown out. Today it is taken for granted that a Member of the Government can never vote against his party. That we have to accept, but it is fast becoming accepted that a backbencher cannot vote against his Government on major issues, on minor issues or on something about which he feels sincerely. If that is extended from the Disraeli era through the Heath era to another generation, we shall be nothing but a bunch of puppets pretending to represent our constituents.
I am against the Bill. The Whips will never change my mind on that. Perhaps if we ever see the return of a Labour Government they will take the Bill away. I am sure that we shall not, but on this Bill, and on this subject, no Whip will make me crawl into any corridor, and no man saying that we might lose the Bill because some Members are in Paris will make me crawl into a corridor.
I was disappointed to hear my hon. Friend ask us to take note of the small majorities because some of our Members are in Paris. This is the House of Commons. If the majority is low, it is a disgrace, but the majority is low because Members feel strongly about the Bill. The majorities have been consistent—3, 4, 5, 7, 5, 4, and so on, in this House and in the other place. The reason is that this is a shoddy Bill, a second-rate Bill, and also that it is a Bill which we regret ever bringing to the Floor of the House.
The personal tragedy is that we did not have the courage to drop it, to forget it, six or eight weeks ago. I repeat what I said to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). I honestly believe that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would have remained silent, if we had quietly let the Bill go. They would not have leapt up and down saying that we were weak. The right hon. Gentleman is an older and more senior Member of the House than I am.
I believe that the day that a Minister stands up at the Dispatch Box and says "We have thought about this, we rushed in too fast and we made a mistake", he will capture the respect of the entire country. It is a wrong attitude to think that one always has to be correct once one has made a decision. I feel that even more than being told that I must crawl into a corridor. It is worth fighting for, even if it is not on this Bill. I shall abstain. I think that this is a Bill of no significance. I have voted against three Clauses and two Amendments, and when the final vote comes I shall abstain.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: The last few words spoken by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) have put me in an immense quandary. I was going to pay my respects to his fine statement and say—I shall not call it courage—that it was


very good speech, but the hon. Member ended by saying that he would not crawl into a corridor; indeed, that he would not crawl into either of two corridors.

Mr. Edelman: Perhaps my hon. Friend did not quite hear the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) say sotto voce that he was going to crawl into the Library.

Mr. Buchan: Whatever embellishment is given to his statement, the facts remain. The hon. Gentleman at first convinced me that he would stand up for what he believed in. That was the message of the greater part of his speech.
The significant thing about the hon. Gentleman's speech is that he has got through to some of his hon. Friends the importance, the seriousness and the depth of the issue we are debating. I do not think he will help his case if after that, he does not stand up and vote. I hope that he will. I respect the hon. Gentleman for what he has done in the past and for all the arguments he has put before the House.
The hon. Gentleman's closing remarks have made my task a little easier. I had thought that there was no point in going on after 99·9 per cent. of what he said but, clearly, all has not now been said and there are one or two matters which we must take up. First, it should be re-emphasised that no case has yet been made for collecting that £1 million. No case has been made for the principle of charging. We have been told that, if we raise the £1 million through charges, more money will be made available by the Treasury for the galleries. This has been the "sprat and mackerel" argument, the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money).
With respect I do not follow that argument. The hon. Member for Ipswich mentioned Scotland, where the gross amount coming in will be £36,000. As one of my hon. Friends said, if the Government sacked a few Under-Secretaries of State they could easily cover that—and high time too. But such a sum will not give us the buildings we need to show all the pictures which we have in Scotland. It is argued that we need to raise the £1 million because we do not have enough money to show all the pictures we already

have, but plainly £36,000 will not do that in Scotland.
Neither do I follow the argument that the Treasury will not give any money unless charges come in to the tune of £1 million. Who on earth is the Treasury? It seems to be some sort of mousetrap—put the cheese down, snap goes the Treasury and out comes some money. I thought that decisions were made by the Government, not by some mousetrap mechanism of that sort. The argument makes no kind of sense. I do not understand it and I do not believe that hon. Members on the Government side understand it.
I think that this all comes from the days of what has been described as the champagne flush—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) called it the winey head. or the heady wine—both, I suspect—when the Government thought that they would make all manner of cuts in public expenditure and the museums and galleries had to take their share. There was no principle in it at all.
Let us consider for a moment the effect of what the Government are doing. As soon as cash is introduced in this way, it completely distorts what many of us had regarded as one of the great opportunities of our century, the whole idea of popular or public patronage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North said, it becomes a negative patronage as soon as cash is involved. And what cash—10p for a Rembrandt. As soon as cash is involved, the whole sense and value of the thing is vitiated, and the meaning goes.
The Government ought to recognise the strength of the counter-argument based on the need to recognise that these things should be free. If it is argued that £1 million is needed in the form of collections so that more money may be raised for building and other things, the whole subject becomes confused. It is not just a question of compromise. The introduction of cash in order to achieve a quantitative effect in the provision of more money produces a qualitative effect. The thing itself is altered. I would far rather have £1 million less in the total of moneys given to the arts than that the principle of free access should be breached. That is what matters.
One of the problems is that many hon. Members opposite—I except the hon. Member for Louth, despite my regrets about his closing remarks, and I except other hon. Members opposite who have fought nobly—have given no sign, as Ministers have given no sign, of understanding the real importance of free access. It is not just that charges will keep away those who are too poor to pay, and there is no doubt that they will keep some away. Above all, they will stop the beginning of the art gallery and picture-going habit. They will stop its growth at the source.
It will be a problem for many people, including families with children. They will not save up and say "Next Sunday we will go in from the suburbs with our three children to the art gallery." A visit to an art gallery will not seem in the same category as a picnic outing or a walk. It will no longer be seen as just as natural as a walk to drop in on an art gallery. Hon. Members opposite have not understood this, and this is one of their errors which has led to the Bill.
It has been pointed out that we are in general dealing with the artefact whereas a concert is a living thing. I have no objections whatever to free concerts. The highest point of popular participation in the arts in Britain was during the war precisely when the nation was paying attention to bringing the arts to the people free. We all heard Myra Hess "up the road".
We give a great deal of money to assist those who can often afford to go to concerts. I do not begrudge that. Scottish opera is in a very fine condition just now. Much money is given in subsidies. Prices remain so high that it is a subsidy towards middle-class and upper-class attendance. I regret this. I would welcome higher subsidies if that meant that more people who were less well off could go. I repeat that I approve of the subsidy, but nevertheless in qualitative terms it is a subsidy to those who are already well off, because people are still left with the problem of finding anything from £2 to £5. However, the analogy was truer than was perhaps realised and perhaps the task in the twentieth century is not to diminish the principle but to extend it.
I do not blame the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office, for his perfunctory and disgraceful speech. The hon. Gentleman was ashamed of the Bill. We have a long tradition in Scotland in education and other spheres of the provision of these things free. We have our Carnegies, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the State from the sixteenth century onwards. Of course, the hon. Gentleman was ashamed and perfunctory.
I go further and say that I feel equally sorry for the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. I feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman if he believes in the Bill. I feel sorry for him if he does not believe in it. He has been hooked on the face by the noble Lord in another place.
I hope that some day the Government will say "We were wrong. We withdraw this Measure." I do not believe that they would lose any credit if they did that. However, to save the face of the noble Lord, the poor old Under-Secretary has been put through all this. If a dirty, nasty, squalid, petty, mean, shabby little thing like this had to be done, the Government should not have asked a junior Minister to do it. As the noble Lord could not present it to this House, the Secretary of State for Education and Science herself should have been here. It was disgraceful for the Government to put the Under-Secretary through this so that he comes in for all the contempt. Poor people in generations yet unborn will have to read the rubbish that he spoke today about the National Portrait Gallery and his argument about the trustees with their scheme for the free day and the 40p charge on other days.
The argument against it was that this would deprive those people who deserve to get there. The whole Bill will deprive those who deserve to get there. If that is the Under-Secretary's argument, he should drop the Bill. The price of admission to the Tower of London is to be doubled: 20p goes up to 40p next year. That will make it eight times greater than the Prime Minister's norm. Even entrance fees going up to 10p is an increase of infinity; it is the Prime Minister's norm multiplied by infinity. Where is the sense in that?
9.30 p.m.
As the hon. Member for Louth said, it would be earth-shaking if a junior Minister were to say that in the absence of his master he would drop the Bill and face the consequences. We know that the hon. Gentleman cannot say it. I have been through the mill. I know that the hon. Gentleman is terrified—"feared", as we say in Scotland—to go back to his Department and say "I got beaten". This is the difficulty in government. Junior Ministers do not like to lose the argument. However, were he to do so his courage would not be diminished in the eyes of his friends and it would be an historic day.
What a tragedy it is that at the fag end of a Session in which the Government have turned tail on major issue after major issue they cannot turn tail on this one. Mr. Rees-Mogg, that well-known polemicist, talked in The Times about the Government's U-turn. When we change our policy, we have turned a somersault. When the Tories do it, they have done a U-turn even though they move from the horizontal to the vertical back through the horizontal.
It is a little thing that we are asking We have 30 minutes or so in which it can be done. Drop the Bill, lad, and go down in history.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I felt that there was a ready response by Ministers on the Treasury Bench to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), not least because of his vital point that no argument has been produced all the way through our discussions for raising the £1 million. No argument has been produced in favour of charges. This debate and previous debates have indicated beyond doubt that the Bill and its proposals produce problem after problem. The Under-Secretary has been able to make concessions, which we welcome, as to the disabled and as to guides. This is excellent.
Everyone can think of cases which deserve concessions. They need to be made to scholars. The discretion as to who may be admitted into a museum or gallery free of charge should lie with the trustees. Concessions are needed for members of the International Association of Art Critics. I have a letter written

by the secretary of the association saying that the consequence of the Bill is that Great Britain will be the only country where the association card will not be accepted. It seems that the Government have no concession to make in that direction.
An essential task—and I speak with feeling as a formed member of the Civil Service Union and of a museum staff—for members of the staffs of museums, whether we did it during working hours or when we were free, was to pay visits to other museums to gain ideas. Yet we have had no definite indication from the Paymaster-General as to what the situation will be for museum staffs. As soon as the principle of charging is introduced concession after concession has to be made, and in general the consequence of this is an atmosphere of meanness. The Under-Secretary has had to argue this impossible case. I can only sympathise with him.
It is important that the House should recognise the kind of consequences that these proposals are likely to have on the trustees of some of our institutions. I should like to illustrate this by mentioning the situation of the National Maritime Museum in my constituency. I shall seek to show that in a real sense the Secretary of State for Education and Science has exercised improper duress over the trustees of this Museum in the last few months. The trustees are governed by the National Maritime Act, 1934, by which they are granted power to manage and control their museum. It is specifically stated in the Act that they have power to make regulations as to charges. This is their business, their decision and as trustees they have a duty to the general public. If in their view they believe that the general public is best served by free entry then their view should prevail. What happened? The Under-Secretary—he is on record to this effect—has no intention of altering the Statute governing the National Maritime Museum. He made that clear on 17th January.
The Secretary of State was questioned during the debate on the White Paper about precisely what the situation was for the museum. She made it abundantly clear in her reply that she "required"—that was her word—the trustees to administer charges. She made it clear and unequivocal that that was in a real


sense an order given to the trustees of the museum. What were they to do? The Paymaster-General, with whom I have had correspondence on the subject, has written to say that the trustees did not oppose the administration of charges. Yet when I read the annual report for 1971 of the museum I see these words:
It is not possible for the trustees to predict the effect on attendance of the requirement to charge visitors for admission which has been placed upon them by the Department of Education and Science but they are prepared for a substantial reduction. The effect of this requirement will be somewhat unfortunate at the National Maritime Museum. The buildings have a total of ten separate public entrances. Clearly to staff each entrance with ticket sellers and checkers would be to make it unlikely that any substantial net income would result. The Department of the Environment has been obliged, therefore, to fence off parts of the Royal Park in which the museum stands in order that charges for entry can be made at only four points. This has involved, besides the fences, the building of unsightly huts which in the entrance to the Old Royal Observatory has deprived the public of the unimpeded view of the Meridian Line in the Courtyard which was one of the museum's most popular exhibits and spoiled the delightful eighteenth century courtyard which was restored only three years ago. The trustees deplore the necessity for these developments.
The whole tenor of those remarks in the Annual Report indicates to me that the trustees were entirely opposed to the idea of charging. They saw that the Secretary of State was requiring them to administer charges; they knew the extent to which they were beholden to the Treasury for the sums of money necessary to administer the museum and therefore as trustees it seems they were forced into taking a decision which was contrary to their best judgment of their duty towards the public. I believe that this has resulted in the kind of things that have happened ever since that requirement was laid down. It resulted in the erection of obscene kiosks at the various entrances of the museum and to the Royal Observatory. As I understand the sequence of events, the Department of Education and Science required the huts to be in position by 1st January of this year, long before Parliament had made a final decision as to what ought to be done. In law the trustees have a right to make the decision whether charges should be administered, but they were under duress as a consequence of the words of the Secretary of

State for Education and Science. I felt it right to follow that up and I have come into possession of a letter written by the chairman of the trustees of the National Maritime Museum that establishes beyond doubt that the majority view of the trustees was opposed to charging. The chairman of the trustees, in a letter of 26th September, 1972, written to a Mr. Hugh Leggatt said:
As regards the major question of charging admission, when this intention was published the trustees discussed which course of action to take at length. Opposition to the idea of charging for admittance was by no means unanimous and the chairman, then Lord Runciman, decided we should not oppose the Government on this issue. This still remains our policy.
The only interpretation which I can read into those words is that when the discussion took place there was widespread and almost certainly a majority opinion amongst the trustees of their responsibility towards the public, that it was wrong for them to charge and their responsibilities demanded that they should not do so.
Kiosks have been erected in various places round the Maritime Museum, only for it to be discovered at a late date that it is illegal to erect these things in a royal park. They are now being dismantled, but I discovered yesterday that three are still left. The total cost of erecting them and taking them down, on the admission of the Government, is £10,000. These events are only an indication—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this in the Bill?

Mr. Barnett: It seems relevant to the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: On Third Reading we can discuss only what is contained in the Bill.

Mr. Barnett: I apologise for straying from the principle of the Bill. The purport of what I was saying was that the consequence of the Bill was to lay duties upon the trustees which they should not be expected to undertake and which in their position was harmful. Nevertheless, the consequences of the introduction of the Bill in Parliament and its passing into law can do nothing but damage to our museums and galleries.
We could continue debating the Bill and in doing so we would continue to discover further exceptions which would need to be made to minimise the damage likely to be done. In doing so one reaches a highly complicated situation. Everything will be lost by the decision which the Bill embodies to end the principle of free entry to these institutions, which seems to have been one of the finest principles governing our museums.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Strauss: The most remarkable feature about this debate is that it is taking place at all. When the proposals were first introduced about two years ago they were met with such a storm of opposition and derision by everybody in the art world, the education world, the trustees of the museums and galleries, artists and practically all educated people, and almost without exception every newspaper, that it seemed clear that these proposals, which were thought out and produced in the heat of the moment shortly after the election in an atmosphere of euphoria, would be shortlived and that sense would come into the minds of the Government and they would say "We will not proceed with this Measure."
But that is not what has happened. In spite of the fervour of the opposition, not only of all the trustees of the museums and galleries, which has continued unabated during the last two years, and although public opinion has continued in strong opposition, the Government have persisted with the Bill, and now submit it to us in its last stage.
It may well be said that public protest today is muted compared with what it was two years ago. That is inevitable. The public has to put up with evil that is imposed upon it and in the course of time, when it comes to believe that the evil in unavoidable, it accepts it. It would be quite wrong, however, for the Government to think that the strong feelings of opposition, resentment and indignation that existed when these proposals were first put forward have abated or that the public will forgive or forget what the Government have done.
I should like briefly to recall the main reasons why the Labour Party and most people outside the Labour Party interested in art affairs consider the Bill an anti-art and anti-social abomination. The

first reason has been stated many times this evening and I will not develop it. I should have thought it would be undeniable that the Bill reversed the civilised tradition of our country to allow free access to the nation's art treasures, free access for everybody in the country, rich and poor, native and foreigner, a tradition we have had for 200 years and one which was worthy of preservation unless something so dramatic or important happened that forced the nation to reverse it: but nothing of the sort has happened.
The tradition of free entry to our national museums and galleries has operated for 200 years, in times of the greatest economic stringency. No Government before ever thought it necessary to put a tax on visitors to museums and galleries to gather in a little money for the Exchequer.
I anticipate an argument which I know the Under-Secretary will make, as he has made it on every occasion, and I deal with it once more. He will tell us that there have been entrance fees for many years into places such as Hampton Court and the Tower of London. Of course there have, but the situation there is entirely different. Entrance fees for tourists visiting the Tower of London and to see the Crown Jewels, or the State Rooms at Hampton Court, are one thing, and there may or may not be a case for charging.
But here we are dealing with our great treasure houses of art, owned by and belonging to the nation, and exhibited in our national museums and galleries. Never before has there been a tax on visitors to these major institutions.
Why have the Government caused all this disturbance, annoyance and anger in order to rake in £1 million a year? What nonsense it all is! One million pounds! It costs £18 million a year for the upkeep of those galleries and museums, so the contribution of £1 million is insignificant. Moreover, when compared with the £1,400 million of tax reduction which the Chancellor announced to the House earlier this year the raising of this £1 million of extra money for the Treasury is utterly illogical. It is economic and social lunacy.
The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) says "But we are to develop the visual arts. We shall require more space,


more galleries, to house the exhibits. It is therefore essential to raise this money." That is a ridiculous argument. First, it muddles annual expenditure and capital expenditure. It is ridiculous to suggest that because the Government will spend many millions of pounds during the next 10 years on necessary buildings to house our art, engineering and scientific exhibits the money must be raised by taxing museum-goers to the extent of £1 million. Many more millions of pounds will be paid by the Government to develop our existing schools and to build new schools—tens of millions every year—but it is not suggested that that money should be raised by a special tax on the parents of the children going to the schools.
Up to now it has always been regarded in this civilised country as one of the duties of the Government to house the arts, most of which have been given to the nation and belong to the people—that the housing of the arts is a duty of the Government so that the people shall be able to go freely to enjoy what is theirs. That has been our tradition, and a very fine one. Now, however, on the ground that we must spend money to provide new buildings, this £1 million tax is to be imposed.
We were told today that the housing of the Asian refugees from Uganda in the camps will cost £1 million a month. No one objects to that. It is necessary and that money will come from the Treasury. At the same time the Government insist on raising £1 million a year from gallery and museum visitors. It is ridiculous.
Another reason why we object to the Bill is that it plainly erects a divisive financial barrier against the poorest section of the community, those on low wages, those on social security benefits, and children. They will have greater difficulty than ever before in visiting our museums and galleries and enjoying the art treasures there. Instead of creating greater equality of opportunity among the classes, the Government are deliberately by the Bill creating an inequality which did not exist before.
Contrary to what Ministers speaking on the subject in the past have told us, the entrance charges are keeping people out of the museums. My hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds)

quoted impressive figures showing quite clearly that because of the belief now generally held that the entrance charges are already in existence the number of visitors to the National Gallery and other galleries fell substantially during the summer months, by tens of thousands. But as soon as the trustees put up notices saying "Entrance Free", the number of visitors rose substantially above that of last year. The Government may be pleased or sorry about it, but the result of these entrance charges will undoubtedly be to keep a large number of people away from the galleries, to stop them viewing the possessions they own.
We have been told that this has been done because of a bargain which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made shortly after the 1970 election by which the Minister for the Arts undertook to provide the Treasury with £1 million a year. This is an extraordinary situation. I have never before heard of a situation in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said to a Minister "Your Department has to provide me with a certain figure by taxing people who use the benefits it provides, and that figure has to be a minimum". The Chancellor of the Exchequer said to Lord Eccles "You have to provide me with £1 million" and Lord Eccles promised to do so. As a result, when we press for some concession for children, for old-age pensioners, or for someone else, we are told "We cannot do that. My promise to the Chancellor must stand".
But who is the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Ministers talk as though he were some foreign bankers consortium but he is the Government, and Government decisions and administration are the collective responsibility of all Ministers. To say that one Minister has to do something because he has promised another Minister to do so, and to use it as an excuse to ask for the sympathy and support of the House in order that he may discharge an obligation to another Minister whose word is final and to whom a promise cannot be broken, is utterly ridiculous. But that is what has been happening.
When we urge that children should be allowed to go into museums and galleries free—children on their own, apart from school parties—and that plea has been made a number of times from both sides of the House today, we are told "That


is not possible. That will cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer £150,000 a year." What absolute nonsense that is. It is a terrible thing for the Government—not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Government—to say that children are to be deprived of their ability to go to museums and galleries free and thus, as one of my hon. Friends so aptly put it, have their museum-going habits inhibited while they are still children. It is a grave indictment of the Government that for the sake of £150,000 they are adamant in their determination not to allow children to enter free as this would be breaking a promise made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
This is the argument used moreover by the Minister of Education, one who is responsible for the good education of our children. If a Minister of Education knew his or her stuff properly, rather than charge children to go into museums, he or she would pay them to do so.
I remind the House that the cost of collecting this tax will be immense. The Under-Secretary of State keeps on saying that it is not a tax, but of course it is. It is a tax in exactly the same way as entertainment duty was a tax. People going to theatres, concerts and the like had at one time to pay an entertainment tax of a certain amount. In just the same way, visitors to museums and galleries will have to pay the entrance tax before going in.
As I say, the cost of collection will be immense. The average cost of all our museums and galleries together amounts to 16 per cent. of their total income. In the case of the Maritime Museum it will be 32 per cent., and in the case of the Wallace Museum 33 per cent.
I want to say just a word about Lord Eccles and his relationship to this proposal. It is one of the most remarkable features of the Bill that it was brought in by Lord Eccles. He was chairman of the British Museum Trustees for a long time, and a very able and effective chairman he was. When he was chairman he made a statement—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with

at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Gray.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Strauss: Lord Eccles made a statement in which he said he was opposed to charging visitors to the British Museum to go in. When the Government tried to override decisions of the trustees, Lord Eccles became very angry. He fought the Government—it was the last Government—and said the trustees would not put up with that, that they must exercise their own discretion over functions for which they were responsible and that they would not accept the Government's decisions. That was in connection with the development of the Bloomsbury site. He stood up for the right of the trustees to decide important matters themselves. I am certain that if Lord Eccles were still chairman of the trustees of the British Museum he would fight these proposals with passion.
There is another reason why I find it strange that Lord Eccles should take this line. He is, as we all know, a lover of art and he is a connoisseur of art. He has, moreover, a very fine private collection of art in his own home which he is able to enjoy at leisure any time he likes, every day. He is a fortunate man in being able to do so. But it seems to me that it ill behoves someone in his privileged position to introduce a Bill which makes it difficult and often impossible for the poorer sections of the community to enjoy the beautiful pictures in the national museums and galleries and to sponsor a Measure which deprives them of a centuries-old right to do so. It is wrong that someone in his position, with that fine collection of art in his own home, should stop other people who are not so well off from enjoying art in the national museums and galleries.
It is no use at this stage asking hon. Members on the Government side to turn the Bill down. I know that such an appeal would not be listened to. I believe that if at an earlier stage there had been a secret ballot of Conservative Members of the House, asking them "Would it not be wise to drop this unpopular Measure before too much damage is done to your party's public reputation?" there would have been an overwhelming answer of "Yes". It is too late now. The Government have insisted and have been


obstinate in the matter, and Lord Eccles or the Prime Minister has been too small minded to come to Parliament and say "We will withdraw the Bill". At the present moment I cannot hope to appeal to the House on that ground to vote the Measure down, though I would like to do so.
All I can do, therefore, is to ask hon. Members who support the Bill tonight to bear certain things in mind. One is that the measures in the Bill are still today strenuously disliked by practically every trustee of every museum and gallery in the country and that the art world and the educational world are today in as much opposition to the Bill as they were when it was first introduced. Secondly, I would ask them to bear in mind that the Bill is erecting a very real barrier against access to our museums and galleries by the poorer sections of our community. Thirdly, I would ask them to bear in mind that it is violating the civilised tradition which we have had for many years of free access to our museums and galleries, a tradition which has been a source of pride at home and of respect and admiration abroad.
One further thing I ask hon. Members opposite to bear in mind. The proposals in the Bill are diametrically opposed to the philosophy of the Labour Party. I am not in a position to pledge the next Labour Government, but hon. Members opposite know as well as I do that at the first opportunity that Government will repeal the Bill.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. van Straubenzee: We come to the end of a day-long discussion, and of many discussions before that, of this simple and short Bill, which, of course, has considerable ramifications beyond the wording strictly within it. I will do my best to deal with the principles that have been erected but it may be convenient if I do so with reasonable briskness.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: I hope my hon. Friend will not be too brisk, because many of us on this side are anxious to hear what he has to say so that we may know which way we are going to vote.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am glad to know that, but it would have been helpful if such hon. Members, in addition to

the few who were here today, had been also present to hear the matter more fully discussed.
There have been various references to principles. I will take first the three final points put by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). I still do not believe that anyone in the debate has identified the principle that really matters. I simply do not accept that a principle is involved in the charging for admission to our national museums and galleries. As the right hon. Gentleman has freely conceded, at times past in some of them charges have been made, and with a large number of the others the power to do so has been there by their enabling Acts, and when almost identically parallel galleries and museums in other parts of the country do charge, on this occasion I cannot see the matter of principle.
I cannot see a matter of principle on the basis that there is something exceptional about the visual arts. We do not claim this principle with ballet, with music or with other arts. Yet we subsidise them heavily and many of us would like to do increasingly better. Indeed, that is happening through the media of the Arts Council and so on. But I cannot find some special principle in the selection of this particular form of art.
Where I do find the principle is against the background of a massive expansion programme—and massive it not only is but is conceded to be by the Opposition. That principle is whether it is right that the entire weight of the expansion should be borne by the taxpayers or whether it is reasonable that a single small segment of it should be borne by those who enjoy the galleries and museums. That is the principle and on that basis it is reasonable to proceed as we have proceeded.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer), whose splendid speech we listened to with the closest of attention, except for the disaster at the end, that he represents a very large number of people in Louth who are taxpayers who have, regrettably, no more than an occasional ability to see these splendid collections. He also has a duty to them and not just to those like himself and like myself who enjoy these collections.
I am asked whether there is not grave discourtesy to trustees in making a


request to them which it is felt carries something of the iron in the velvet glove. But who is talking when this accusation is made? Does the House not remember how the Labour Government, in an exactly parallel situation, worked? The financing of the universities is almost precisely the same in principle as the method by which the Treasury finances almost exclusively the trustees we are now talking of. The Labour Government made a precisely similar request in terms of the fees charged at universities. Quite understandably, since they were wholly dependent on Government finance, the university trustees agreed to it. There is no new principle involved here except that against the background of expansion, which is the key to the situation. If we cannot get these new galleries and cannot have the new buildings set out in the White Paper, to which great tribute has rightly been paid, if we cannot expand the physical facilities, we shall not be able to give people the opportunities they should have of enjoying the visual arts.
Increasingly, the visual arts will be contributed to from abroad. I wonder how many hon. Members, for example, have enjoyed the incomparable richness of the neo-classical exhibitions at Burlington House and the Victoria and Albert Museum, and the delightful little one at Hampstead, where it is possible to see Mr. Hugh Leggatt's generous gift to the nation in very pleasant surroundings. In all three places, large numbers of people are paying.
The right hon. Gentleman at an earlier stage reckoned that he would think that charging was all right for special exhibitions. I take the diametrically opposite view. I trust that we shall move to a state when, with the new arrangements, at special exhibitions, when incomparable art is brought together from all over Europe for the enjoyment of us all, large

entrance charges will not be appropriate. How there is a hunger for it in the year of the Tutankhamen exhibition it is hardly necessary to say. That is the principle involved against a background of expansion.
On the charging system itself, once again on behalf of the Government I have responded today in terms which have been generously welcomed. I am thinking of the special provisions for the disabled and so on. This is why a fair and responsive charging scheme makes a deal of sense against this background. That is why I commend the Bill to the House.

10.13 p.m.

Dr. Stuttaford: Dr. Stuttaford rose—

Hon. Members: No.

Dr. Stuttaford: I was not called earlier, and there are one or two points I must take up with my hon. Friend. There is a great difference between the specialised exhibition and the constant exhibition. The paintings with which we are concerned were given to the nation to be looked at by the nation when people want to see them. It is as absurd to charge people to look at the paintings which belong to the nation and which hang regularly in museums as it would be to expect those who live in the richer households to pay to see their own paintings hanging in their own drawing rooms.
This Bill has little support in the country, whether it be at the bottom or at the top of society. I have not been moved one inch from my original view by the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 228.

Division No. 339.]
AYES
[10.13 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Blaker, Peter
Burden, F. A.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Body, Richard
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)


Astor, John
Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Carlisle, Mark


Atkins, Humphrey
Bossom, Sir Clive
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Awdry, Daniel
Bowden, Andrew
Channon, Paul


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Braine, Sir Bernard
Chichester-Clark, R.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bray, Ronald
Churchill, W. S.


Balniel, Rt. Hon. Lord
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clarke, Kennet[...] (Rushcliffe)


Benyon, W.
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Clegg, Walter


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Cockeram, Eric


Biffen, John
Buck, Antony
Cooke, Robert


Biggs-Davison, John
Bullus, Sir Eric
Coombs, Derek




Cooper, A. E.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Costain, A. P.
Kilfedder, James
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crouch, David
Kimball, Marcus
Raison, Timothy


Crowder, F. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Ma[...].-Gen.Jack
Kinsey, J. R.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dean, Paul
Kirk, Peter
Redmond, Robert


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Dixon, Piers
Knox, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lambton, Lord
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Emery, Peter
Lamont, Norman
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
Lane, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Farr, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Fell, Anthony
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rost, Peter


Fidler, Michael
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Anthony


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fookes, Miss Janet
Longden, Sir Gilbert
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fortescue, Tim
Luce, R. N.
Scott, Nicholas


Foster, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fowler, Norman
MacArthur, Ian
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McCrindle, R. A.
Simeons, Charles


Fry, Peter
McLaren, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gibson-Watt, David
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Maurice (Farnham)
Soref, Harold


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Spence, John


Glyn, Dr. Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Sproat, Iain


Goodhew, Victor
Maddan, Martin
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Gorst, John
Madel, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gower, Raymond
Maginnis, John E.
Stokes, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Sutcliffe, John


Green, Alan
Marten, Neil
Tapsell, Peter


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Grylls Michael
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Gurden, Harold
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Temple, John M.


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Miscampbell, Norman
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hall-Davis A. G. F.
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Money, Ernle
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)



Monks, Mrs. Connie
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Monro, Hector
Trew, Peter


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus
Tugendhat, Christopher


Havers, Michael
More, Jasper
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hawkins, Paul
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Vaughan, Gerard


Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Charles
Waddington, David


Higgins, Terence L.
Murton, Oscar
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hiley, Joseph
Neave, Alrey
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Ward, Dame Irene


Holland, Philip
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Holt, Miss Mary
Normanton, Tom
Weatherill, Bernard


Hordern, Peter
Nott, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hornby, Richard
Onslow, Cranley
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wilkinson, John


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Winterton, Nicholas


Hunt, John
Osborn, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Iremonger, T. L.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Woodnutt, Mark


James, David
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Worsley, Marcus


Jenkins, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Parkinson, Cecil



Jessel, Toby
Pink, R. Bonner



Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Marcus Fox and


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Mr. Hamish Gray.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Albu, Austen
Bidwell, Sydney
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bishop, E. S.
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Allen, Scholefield
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Booth, Albert
Cohen, Stanley


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bradley, Tom
Concannon, J. D.


Armstrong, Ernest
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Conlan, Bernard


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Corbel, Mrs. Freda


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Crawshaw, Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchan, Norman
Cronin, John


Barnes, Michael
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dalyell, Tam


Baxter, William
Campbell, [...]. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)


Beaney, Alan
Cant, R. B.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Ifor (Gower)







Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Probert, Arthur


Deakins, Eric
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Richard, Ivor


Doig, Peter
Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lawson, George
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Driberg, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted
Rose, Paul B.


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Eadie, Alex
Leonard, Dick
Rowlands, Ted


Edelman, Maurice
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Sandelson, Neville


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Ellis, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Evans, Fred
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ewing, Harry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Faulds, Andrew
McBride, Neil
Sillars, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney. Hugh
Silverman, Julius


Foot, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Ford, Ben
Mackenzie, Gregor
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Forrester, John
Mackie, John
Spearing, Nigel


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Freeson, Reginald
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stallard, A. W.


Galpern, Sir Myer
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marsden, F.
Strang, Gavin


Golding, John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Gourley, Harry
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Meacher, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Swain, Thomas


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Milne, Edward
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)



Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)
Torney, Tom


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tuck, Raphael


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Moyle, Roland
Urwin, T. W.


Hardy, Peter
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Varley, Eric G.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Ronald King
Wainwright, Edwin


Hattersley, Roy
Oakes, Gordon
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hilton, W. S.
O'Halloran, Michael
Wallace, George


Hooson, Emlyn
O'Malley, Brian
Weitzman, David


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orem, Bert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Orme, Stanley
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oswald, Thomas
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Paget, R. T.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hunter, Adam
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Janner, Greville
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie
Woof, Robert


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom



John, Brynmor
Pentland, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Mr. James A. Dunn.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prescott, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (ZAMBIA) ORDER

10.26 p.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Nott): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Zambia) Order 1972 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 8th August.
It gives me pleasure to bring before the House a new double taxation convention with Zambia. This convention will replace the agreement that was made in 1956 with the former Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and continued in force with Zambia after independence.
This new convention with Zambia follows the general pattern of our recent conventions, with which the House will be familiar, and I do not propose to take up the time of the House by going into a detailed summary of all the articles in the order.
I should, however, like to mention one point, and that is that this is probably the last convention to be negotiated and signed before the enactment of the corporation tax reforms in this year's Finance Act. My hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said during the debate on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill that in the next year or so the Inland Revenue would be renegotiating the material parts of existing conventions to fit the new imputation system of corporation tax. The relevant orders will come before the House in due course.
I hope that this new double taxation convention will meet with the approval of the House. If there are any particular points which any hon. Member wishes to raise I shall, with the leave of the House, do my best to answer him.

Question put and agreed to.

VALUE ADDED TAX

10.28 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): I beg to move,
That the Input Tax (Exceptions) (No. 1) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1165), dated 1st August 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th August, be approved.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I outline briefly the purpose and effect of the order. It is made under Section 3(6) of the Finance Act, 1972. It disallows the deduction of input tax by builders on certain articles incorporated as fixtures in dwelling accommodation in which they hold or own a major interest.
The order is necessary, as hon. Gentlemen opposite will realise, following the Finance Act, to maintain parity of treatment between articles installed as fixtures in speculative building and similar articles installed in buildings constructed to a client's order on land he owns himself and also articles bought by a householder subsequent to the purchase of a new house. The need for the order was explained at some length by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in Standing Committee on 24th May and in further detail by myself on Report on 11th July.
Schedule 4, Group 8, Item 2 of the Finance Act, 1972, zero-rates construction services, and Item 3 zero-rates the supply, in connection with such services, of articles of a kind ordinarily installed—and the House will recall that that is the crucial expression—by builders as fixtures. Items such as washing machines, television sets and fitted carpets are not ordinarily installed by builders and so are excluded from the zero rate if they are installed by a builder in a house which he builds for a client.
Items 1 of Group 8, however—which zero rates the granting of a major interest, by a person constructing a building, in the building or its site—does not impose any similar restriction on articles installed as fixtures. Therefore, without this order, a speculative builder would be able to supply at the zero rate anything which he was able or willing to install as a fixture, and there would then be an anomaly in the taxation of such articles, depending on whether the builder owned


the land on which he was building or not; and a serious loss of revenue could develop.
The order applies only to articles installed in domestic accommodation. As regards other buildings, the House will appreciate that the operation of the credit mechanism applies, and there is thus no tax incentive for a builder to install fitted carpets and so on in such a case.
The items which are regarded as ordinarily installed by builders as fixtures include bathroom fixtures, work units and cupboards in kitchens, central heating equipment and water heaters, and not things like washing machines, waste disposal units and cookers. We have issued Notice No. 708 on the Construction Industry, which illustrates the kind of thing which is in one category or the other.
These lists are intended to be regarded as illustrative and representing Customs' current interpretation of the law. It may be argued that one item or another ought to be in the opposite list. This does not strictly arise on the order. Such matters are, in the first place, within the discretion of the Customs, but, consistent with our overall Green Paper approach, we have discussed the matter with the main trade associations, and they will be kept under review. Any decision of Customs on the matter in an individual case is open to appeal to a VAT tribunal or a court. We envisage that, when a new ruling is given, we shall publish this by means of Press and public notices.
I hope that, with that explanation, the House will feel that this is consistent with the line which was taken during the Finance Bill debates, which, I think, was generally understood, and I hope that the order will be approved.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett: We have heard this before. In effect, this is where we came in—or, rather, where we left off. The order demonstrates the failure to clarify how the system would work, and it emphasises the chaotic state of unpreparedness both in the Customs and Excise and in the Government, and among the traders who will have to operate the system.
The documents which are supposedly issued by the Customs and Excise in relation to this tax, as set out on page of Customs and Excise Notice No. 700,

so far as I have been able to ascertain, are not even all available. They are not available in the Vote Office. Of Nos. 700 to 711 of the guides, five were not available in the Vote Office yesterday. One of those five was available in the Library. They are certainly not all available in the various VAT offices throughout the country.
Where they are available, many of them—this order is one example—are utterly incomprehensible to the people who will have to deal with them. I take the example of the retailers who will have to deal with the four schemes. How are they to be able to cope with the so-called simple scheme 2? All I can say to the Financial Secretary is that he should go round and talk to some of the small retailers.
As for registration, it is early days yet, but the As to Cs are supposed to be registered by the end of October, and it would be interesting to know how many have yet registered, and how many are aware that, if they do not register, they will be liable to a fine of £1,000 and up to two years' imprisonment.
I know from personal experience that many small trades and industries are unaware of how VAT will affect them. I do not exaggerate when I say that there is a chaotic state of unpreparedness.
The order relates to the construction industry. The Minister of State said on 24th May that as much guidance as possible would be given. We know now what that amounts to. We have heard the exposition of the guidance by the Financial Secretary and we have the guide for the construction industry. This is what the trade will have to use in the operation of this broad-based, comprehensive, anomaly-free tax, to use the language we heard so often from the Financial Secretary. I do not know whether it means anything, but I noticed that tonight the Financial Secretary did not tell us once more that this was a broad-based, comprehensive, anomaly-free tax. I do not know whether that means that the hon. Gentleman, too, has recognised what we told him repeatedly throughout the debates we had on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee.
From the guide and from what the Financial Secretary said this evening, the


trade will know little more than we had in Committee and on Report. Yet houses are being built now that will be sold after 1st April, 1973, and builders will not know for certain which of those items will be subject to VAT and which will not. This will be in effect a marvellous excuse for builders to do what many of them are, unfortunately, doing today, namely, increasing the price from that first quoted. The gazumping going on in the building trade now by builders and others will be given a boost by VAT.
We are left with the basic problem from this industry under VAT, namely, what is "ordinarily installed" and what are luxury fittings? In the debate on 11th July the Financial Secretary gave us some examples. He spoke of washing machines, television sets, carpets, cookers, and a few more which are now referred to in the guide.
I will give a few examples of what I mean when I say that we are not much further advanced with the guide or with the Financial Secretary's exposition. We are told that carpets are to be disallowed as an input but tiles are to be allowed. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), who is experienced in the building industry, told the Minister at the time that we debated this matter on Report, in a phrase which the Minister will no doubt recall, that there would be a "hubble dubble" in this industry. I have no doubt that after this explanation there will be a hubble dubble.
How will builders distinguish between carpets and the sort of tiles which are frequently fitted in the building industry? We are then told that bedroom furniture is to be disallowed. What about cupboards? That will be an interesting situation. Cupboards are allowed. When a cupboard is a piece of bedroom furniture will be an interesting problem for the building industry to decide. Kitchen furniture, on the other hand, whether it be a cupboard or anything else, is apparently to be allowed. Baths are to be allowed. What about fancy baths? What about a black bath as opposed to a pink one? Is that "ordinarily installed"? What about the round baths which I understand are now being installed? I am sure that the hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) is

very concerned with that type of bath. I understand that refrigerators and cookers are to be disallowed, even though many are, and will be in future, fitted with the kitchen.
Sinks are to be allowed, but waste disposal units which are being more and more frequently fitted with sinks, are not to be allowed. I do not know how the builder will sort that out. A garden shed and summerhouse is disallowed, while a garage is allowed. There will be some interesting distinctions between garden sheds and garages when builders are constructing houses in future.
On the general question of "ordinarily installed" there is a considerable difference between what is ordinarily installed in a house costing £4,000—there are still a few of those in my area, but none in the South—and one costing £40,000. There is a considerable difference in the type of fittings ordinarily installed in those different types of houses. I would be interested to know how it is suggested that the building industry will decide on a distinction.
I recall that the Financial Secretary said in our last debate that this great tax would at least remove the bad purchase tax line-drawing in furniture. If he believed that I hope by now he is disillusioned. All this simply emphasises more than ever the need for much more time for the Government, traders and the public to prepare for the massive upheaval there will be with the introduction of this tax. Apart from anything else, a time of rapidly increasing inflation—when it is as the Prime Minister constantly tells us, the major problem of the day—is, I would have thought, precisely the time to do nothing to make the problem worse.
No one can doubt that VAT will increase the inflationary spiral. There is a tremendous case for postponing VAT altogether. Even at this late stage I appeal to the Chancellor to give serious consideration to delaying the introduction of VAT for at least a year.

Mr. Higgins: By leave of the House, may I reply to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett).
The first point to be made is that it would not be to anyone's advantage to create uncertainty at this stage by delaying the introduction of VAT. We have


made the timetable clear. We have taken into account throughout the views expressed to us, and it is true to say that this tax had had more careful preparation before introduction than any other in this country.
As to the general position of trade, I have met a large number of businessmen who are concerned with the introduction of the tax and they did not reflect the kind of view which the hon. Gentleman, perhaps in rhetorical phrases, has put forward. If it is the case that in a particular instance the information required is not available at the appropriate moment then I hope hon. Members will bring these cases to my attention and I will certainly look into them. It is true that the explanatory literature is long, but it is also true that if the matters are spelled out at length it facilitates understanding of the tax where a short explanation might have the opposite effect.
If particular people have questions about certain items, it is open to them to go to the local office of Customs and Excise, which will be glad to give any help it can. That is the general approach we have adopted, and it is one which has been generally appreciated by traders. This has taken me a little wide and I do not want to go out of order. It is right to stress that we have carried out consultations with the trade and trade associations particularly concerned in the area covered by the order. Their views are reflected in the position which I outlined in my opening remarks. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton made considerable play, as he did during the Finance Bill debates, with the expression "ordinarily installed" and asked precisely what it meant. It is right to stress that the words
builders' hardware, sanitary ware and other articles of a kind ordinarily installed by builders as fixtures
are taken from purchase tax law. They have been judicially considered. There is a body of case law and administrative decisions which are likely to be helpful in this matter. As the hon. Gentleman and the House will know, we have not felt it inappropriate, where there are purchase tax precedents and where matters have already been judicially considered, to ensure that they can still be the basis

for interpretation either by the VAT tribunal or the courts.
We have indicated in Notice 708 a broad classification, but if there is any doubt on a particular instance, the Customs and Excise will be glad to clarify the position, if a query is raised with it, or the matter can go to appeal. There is a distinction between individual cases which is brought out in paragraph 5 of Notice 708, which excludes bought-in articles of furniture other than those specified in paragraph 4. There is a distinction between bought-in furniture if it is installed as a fixture and the airing cupboards and other cupboards which the builder would make himself.
I do not accept that there is likely to be a massive upheaval. That is not the impression which I have gained from talking to traders. However, we will look into any cases which hon. Members would like to bring to our attention.
We are not complacent. It would be remarkable if in introducing a new tax there were not instances where communications were not as good as they should be. I shall be happy to look into any instances where that is so and deal with them as rapidly as possible to ensure that the situation is clarified. For those reasons, I hope that the House will feel able to approve the order.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Financial Secretary is right in saying that the local officers of Customs and Excise have been helpful. Certainly that applies in the area which I know and I am sure that it applies throughout the country. However, the Financial Secretary is far less right in suggesting that there is no uncertainty. There is still a great deal of uncertainty judging by correspondence which I have received. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) has an argument when he suggests that there is uncertainty.
I should like to know to what sort of business men the Financial Secretary was talking. I suspect the truth is that a good job has been done by the big business men at the centre of things, but it is a different story with small traders who are dependent on their trading associations. The fault may lie in poor communications between such traders and


the professional and trading associations to which they belong. Some of the trading associations have not distinguished themselves by the help that they have given to their members. That is by the by. The fact is that there is a great deal of uncertainty amongst small traders.
I have formed the impression that the big builders have arranged matters rather better than some of us thought likely during the passage of the Finance Bill. I know very well what the medium and smaller firms are doing—they do not have any kind of idea of what costs there are and they are therefore thinking of the maximum charge that can possibly accrue to them, and therefore prices are rocketing because of the uncertainty.
Brought-in fitments have been mentioned. The truth is that the picture is not as the Financial Secretary sees it, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton sees it. I cannot think that the Scots are very different from anybody else and I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is considerable lack of understanding about what is to be disallowed and what allowed. For the Treasury to say that everything is taped is, I will not say complacent, but an optimistic attitude and wide of the mark.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved
That the Input Tax (Exceptions) (No. 1) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1165), dated 1st August 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th August, be approved.

VALUE ADDED TAX

10.51 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): I beg to move
That the Input Tax (Exceptions) (No. 3) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1167), dated 1st August 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th August, be approved.
It may be appropriate if again I say a few words about the Motion and then answer any questions that hon. Members may put. I should like to clarify what was said a few moments ago. What I said about uncertainty was related to the suggestion that the Government should delay the introduction of the tax. The Government's timetable has been set out

clearly and we see no reason for not going through on schedule.
This order is particularly concerned with a number of matters that we discussed in the Finance Bill debates. The normal way in which VAT works is that a taxable person may under the operation of the credit mechanism take credit for the tax invoiced to him on the goods and services that he purchases for the purpose of his business. But all countries with a VAT have found it necessary to restrict this right to claim credit for tax in the case of certain goods and services, particularly those likely to be used for both business and private purposes. In such cases there is scope for inequity between individuals and for tax avoidance.
The order provides that the tax on goods and services supplied to a taxable person and used by him for the purposes of business entertainment—other than that provided for overseas customers—shall not be deductible as input tax. The intention to make the order was announced in the White Paper on VAT Cmnd. 4929, at the time of the last Budget.
"Business entertainment" covers entertainment and hospitality of any kind provided by the taxable person or a member of his staff. It includes not only the provision of meals, drinks and so on, but accommodation, entertainment at theatres and so on. The scope of the order is similar to that of the provisions under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act. 1970, which withholds income and corporation tax relief from business entertainment expenses. The wording of the tax provisions is not identical, however, as the bases of the taxes vary, VAT being a tax on consumer expenditure and income and corporation taxes being taxes on income and profits.
We believe that the order implements the proposals that we put forward in the White Paper and subsequent financial debates. I believe that it is well understood by the House, but if there are any matters that hon. Members would like me to explain, I will certainly attempt to do so.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In paragraph 2, sub paragraph (3) we have this fascinating phrase: "hospitality of any kind". I was just a little curious


to know why the Treasury should add words which may be considered gratuitous: "of any kind". Why not just say "hospitality"?
It is a bit of a give away. Here we are in the middle of the week of the Chequers talks, arguing about £2 a week extra. I shall not try to expand this—it would be out of order—into a whole economic debate, but I would say to the Financial Secretary that there is a bit of a contrast between the stringent talks which may be necessary at the economic summit this week and this idea of "hospitality of any kind" because it stretches things a bit far.
I am all for theatres, and we have had arguments before about the need for help for theatres, but it sticks in the craw a bit that theatre-going should be included in this kind of arrangement. There is an almost bottomless pit.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) did not feel that he should go on and give us some more examples of the kind of hospitality he thought might be envisaged. As I understand it, the type of hospitality to which he is taking exception would be disallowed as an input. Some of the types of hospitality for overseas customers could include a type of hospitality to which my hon. Friend might take exception. I have no doubt that some hospitality is given to overseas customers which, knowing my hon. Friend's frugal habits, he would take exception to.
One accepts the need to disallow as input this type of expenditure and I note that it has been done by drafting which, as far as I can see, is broadly in the same language as Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1965. I recall those 1965 debates with great interest, because the wording of that Section was objected to very strongly by hon. Members opposite when we sought to disallow entertainment expenses as business expenses, but I note that they have lifted words directly from Section 15 for the purposes of the Finance Act, 1972, although it seems not quite the case with Section 15(8), which is rather more specific. That refers to gifts. "Gift" was classed as enter-

tainment in that sense and we do not seem to have that now.
We have all sorts of other definitions of business entertainment, and my hon. Friend will be interested to know that hunting, shooting, fishing and golf are also incorporated. It is thus possible to take an overseas customer on a yachting trip, or a hunting, shooting and fishing trip, and this would presumably be hospitality, but I am not sure why this part of Section 15 relating to gifts has not been incorporated.
I have also noted that in the words of paragraph 3 of the order, taken from the Finance Act, 1965, we are told that unless
the entertainment is provided for an overseas customer of his and is of a kind and on a scale which is reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances.
I do not know what experience the Financial Secretary has had of defining "reasonable" or of the difficulties, the Inland Revenue has had of defining "reasonable". For example, would it be considered reasonable to take an overseas customer to a strip club or to the Bunny Club, and to pay out large sums of money to entertain him? Many overseas customers like to be entertained rather lavishly. An Arab sheik would probably want something which by any definition most people would consider unreasonable. It would be interesting to know from the Financial Secretary what he understands to be the meaning of
reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances.".
There is one anomaly with which I would like him to deal. If a business man travels from Manchester to London and eats a meal with an overseas customer, the cost will be allowed. If he eats the meal with a home trade customer, the cost of the meal both for the customer and for himself will be disallowed. But if he eats the meal on his own before going to see the customer I understand that the cost will be allowed, both for Inland Revenue purposes and as an input, because that is the same as the Inland Revenue rule. But if he can eat on his own and it is an allowable input, what about when he eats with a fellow director to discuss the company's business? Will that be an allowable input for the purposes of VAT, or will it be disallowed because it is disallowed as a benefit for Inland Revenue purposes?
We and industry are entitled to clarification. I am sure that the Financial Secretary is, as ever, ready to clarify the whole matter for us.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Higgins: In the speech of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) we went from rhetoric to reversal, in that he had the whole thing back to front. I can well understand that he might have objected if we had not introduced the order, in the context of the tripartite talks, saying that we would not disallow input tax on business entertainment, but the fact is that we have done so. Therefore, I would have thought that he would support the order.
Similarly, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the clearly comprehensive expression
hospitality of any kind
as against just "hospitality", which he might have thought was too narrow or not all-embracing. Therefore, his arguments did not bring the hon. Gentleman to the conclusion which he seemed to think. They supported both the order and the wording.
I was a little worried about the origin of the wording. I understand that the expression
hospitality of any kind
comes from the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970, but, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) rightly pointed out, it was based on the proposals of the Labour Chancellor in 1965. I am not sure that that is a pedigree with which I find myself in sympathy, but it seems to have proved over the years to have been not inappropriate, and it seemed to us reasonable to use the same expression. There are some slight differences between the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise position, because of the differing nature of the two taxes.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton raised some questions with regard to gifts. I am now basing my remarks on my understanding of the tax and of our debates in Standing Committee, where he will find that these matters were discussed at some length. For example, he will recall that gifts of under £10 in value are free from VAT under

Schedule 3 of the Finance Act, and it cannot be effected by Statutory Instrument. If I am not correct in that, I will write to him and make the position clear.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the definition of "business entertainment". It is quite true, as he said, that that includes the provision not only of meals but also of drinks, accommodation, entertainment at the theatre, night clubs, and so on; and also recreational facilities such as hunting, fishing, shooting, golf, yachting, and the like. This, again, follows the provisions of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the position with regard to the entertainment of business clients from overseas and visiting this country, and those in the country. The Inland Revenue position is that entertainment of overseas clients is allowable—and a similar position would appertain here—but that it would be disallowed in the case of domestic clients. The position of the person entertaining a particular client conforms to that provision.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the position of particular employees travelling to meet clients in one category or the other. Again I speak from my own understanding of the position and not with advice, but as I understand it, that will in the normal course of events be a business expense if the person is going about his ordinary business. But one would need to look at the facts of the case. The matter has no doubt been considered in the Inland Revenue context and it would probably be appropriate that the same rules should apply. Again, if I am not correct in that, I will let the hon. Gentleman know.
The temper of the debate on this order has been somewhat less exotic than that on the previous order, and I gather from what the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton said—and, indeed, from what the hon. Member for West Lothian said, although perhaps it was not what he sought to argue—that the two hon. Members are not unsympathetic to the order. I therefore hope that they and the House will feel able to approve it.
I might just added that, in page 35, General Guide No. 700 makes some remarks about gifts and free samples.


which are not totally irrelevant to what the hon. Gentleman said.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Input Tax (Exceptions) (No. 3) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1167), dated 1st August 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th August, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

FORESTRY

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: The previous Adjournment debate on the subject of forestry took place on 5th June, 1972, and a great deal of that discussion centred on the forthcoming review of our forestry areas. At that time we were discussing the siting of a pulp mill in the north-east of England, and we were told by the Parliamentary Secretary that, amongst other things, the timber requirements were the major obstacle to that pulp mill project going ahead. We expressed puzzlement at what we then described as the casual and detached attitude of the Forestry Commission towards a job-hungry area.
The firm, as the Parliamentary Secretary will recollect, was promised some years ago that its timber requirements would be met in something like five years' time. Despite, as the Parliamentary Secretary said in the Adjournment debate in June, the fact that this particular proposal of the pulp mill had been in view for some nine or ten years in one form or another, little or nothing was done about the matter. When we read the policy report, when we analyse some of its findings, I find there was no timber available for this project.
We are entitled to ask, where had it gone? To whom, or to what firm, was it given or promised?
The quantities of timber which the pulp mill apparently needs, said the Parliamentary Secretary, could be met only at the expense of supplies to existing industries. As he rightly pointed out on that occasion, this would possibly

not result in any net gain in employment. This, of course we accept. It has never been the policy of any person or body connected with the responsibility of job attraction in the North-East to operate to the detriment of other development areas of Britain, but the needs and demands of the Northern area, we submit, have claim to at least equal consideration with those of other areas of high unemployment.
Therefore, in dealing in this debate with the economic and industrial implications of the Government's forestry policy, I think we are entitled to ask, what was going on at the Forestry Commission in the period being discussed, that is, the period of the last 10 years? Who was making the decisions? Who was determining the use made of the Commission's resources? How did the allocation of timber fit in with the development policy of successive Governments in that period? And what was the number of jobs provided?
It is obviously going to need more than one debate to sort out the answers to these queries. It will need more than a number of assurances from the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter. I am glad that the Minister himself is present. The answer must come finally from the Minister himself if any credence is to be given to the present document on forestry policy. Not only should it come from the Minister, but it should come quickly.
As the Minister, along with the Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary of State for Wales, said in the foreword to the document published in June:
It is over 50 years since a national forestry policy took shape in this country and nearly 30 years since it was publicly reviewed as a whole. We hope to establish conditions in which in the years ahead the forestry industry can continue to play an effective role in the life of the nation.
In the previous debate the Parliamentary Secretary said there was no advantage in robbing Peter of his job in one development area to give it to Paul in the same or other development area. This sentiment we applaud. So that the Minister must tell us, arising from the review in question, is why was this done in the case of the particular project referred to, and why was the promise of timber supplies in five years' time not fulfilled?
The most disturbing aspect of the consultative document setting out the results of the Government's review of forestry policy was the manner in which the Minister chose to announce its publication.
In answer to what had every appearance of being a "planted" Question, or at least a Question dragged in to serve that purpose, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food devoted 1½ HANSARD columns to giving the details. There were no supplementary questions and no debate. The Minister rightly underlined the importance placed in the report by the Government when he said:
These documents examine in some depth both the economic and social costs and benefits of forestry for the nation and for the rural communities most affected by it. Apart from their immediate relevance to forestry, the Government see these documents as an important contribution to further studies of the economy of rural areas and of some of the problems, notably depopulation, which they can present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1972; Vol. 839, c. 365.]
There was no mention, of course in that reasonably brief answer to a Written Question, of jobs in the adjoining industrial areas, which in many ways ought to be the kernel of this policy.
1 hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will convey my suggestion to his colleagues that the Minister for Industrial Development, who arrived at his post with a flourish of trumpets and a highly publicised past, should now start trying to justify himself to the development areas by getting the Cabinet to look at this aspect of the report.
In considering the economic aspects of forestry review, it has to be pointed out that the benefits of a progressive forestry policy would not only be felt in the rural areas or the development districts but that the country as a whole would benefit.
I do not need to tell the hon. Gentleman of the percentage of home-grown timber used in Britain. Nor do I need to point out the effect on our balance of payments. The import of timber puts a considerable strain on it, to the extent of something like £740 million a year. Indeed, it is among the four biggest items in the nation's import bill. Despite what "Forestry Policy" says, and despite our own efforts, we would

still have to import about 80 per cent. of our timber requirements by the end of the century.
Despite the call for consultation in the forestry review, the Government propose at this stage to stabilise planting at 55,100 acres a year as against 50,000 in 1970–71—little or no difference at all to the timber growing areas of Britain. As The Scotsman, in an editorial on 29th June, said,
It is a pity that forestry ambitions have been curtailed. A more vigorous policy of expansion of the growth timber-using industries of which we have some notable examples would make a big contribution to the economy.
The Association of Forestry Co-operatives of Great Britain was far more trenchant in its criticism. It said that it would ask the Government to withdraw what it called the
… confused and negative publication Forestry in Britain …"
The Timber Trades Journal reported that the Association would suggest to the Government that
… a new 'Forestry in Britain' is prepared based on the reports of the two international conferences held in Helsinki and Stockholm in May and June, the first of which dealt with international forestry and the second with the world's environment.
There is too little time in the debate to go into detail, but a statement issued by the Association complains that the study
… concludes that Britain can afford to remain at the bottom of Europe's forest resource table.
It reaches this conclusion, the statement goes on,
by ignoring the two major economic influences affecting the future patterns of supply and demand of all raw materials, including wood, …
It goes on to deal in some detail with the entire problem facing the Government in dealing with the question of forestry in Britain.
I do not at this stage wish to deal with the implications for forestry policy of entry into the EEC, except to make some slight point on the observations in the document to which I have referred. There is no common forestry policy in the EEC, as the document rightly says, and it does on:
Should it be decided to initiate a common forestry policy at some future date, we shall of course play a full part in its formulation and development.


If we are to take this attitude in relation to future forestry policy, whether inside or outside the EEC, why not now and why not a policy of our own? Surely we are not intending to hang on to the coat tails of Europe, hoping that something will emerge that we can tag on to in future.
I want briefly to touch on references to the recreational potential of State forests and what the review calls the "interests of amenity". I feel that the Forestry Commission in the past has been too timid in this aspect of policy. While it has chalked up some successes in the recreational aspect of its work, the impression has been created, particularly in parts of Northumberland, Durham and the Kielder Forest, that the interests of local landowners have been at the top of priority lists rather than the extension of opportunities to greater numbers of people to enjoy the countryside.
There is no real conflict between the extension of timber-growing areas and recreational facilities. Indeed the two could and should march hand in hand, and we have not tapped the potential in terms of the expansion of recreational facilities in forestry areas of Britain.
Professor Richardson, University of Wales, stressed at the British Association in 1970 that recreational facilities should be provided in forests far beyond car parks and camp sites which are being provided at the present time. There is not time now to go into the fascinating lecture given by the professor, but he talked about the provision of hotels, restaurants, museums, zoos, game parks, marinas and a host of other things. Certainly in a country that is fast moving into the leisure age, when limitation on hours of work and extended leisure time are subjects which are being discussed, these are priority matters in any discussion of forestry policy.
If we look at examples in Denmark, Sweden and Norway—for example, Skansen in Stockholm, Maihaugen in Norway and the interesting developments in the forests of Jaegersborg on the outskirts of Copenhagen—we get some idea of what other countries are able to do, and countries whose resources in this respect are possibly considerably less than ours. At Jaegersborg the State Forest Service maintains a deer park, two hotels, six

camp sites, restaurants, a golf course, a racecourse, an old people's home, and so on.
Bearing in mind earlier discussions we had on entertainment, it might be that some of the things that Denmark provides would not be what this country would want to provide. Nevertheless, it is a prospect that ought to be receiving consideration.
So, in asking for some action to be taken on the basis of the report which is presented, I do not consider that the report necessarily reflects the aspects which ought to be taken up and gone into. However, I welcome the Minister's offer of consultation with all sections of the community on this matter in order that we can make these documents—the first review in 10 years—a jumping off point to give us a vigorous forestry policy, to give us the recreational facilities that we have mentioned, and, above all, to give to the development districts of Britain the job opportunities which forestry presents to them.

11.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Mills): I welcome this opportunity to discuss forestry and the Government's consultative document. The consultative document on forestry policy represents the first attempt by any Government to set down the pros and cons of the subject for public discussion.
The hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) has made one or two criticisms. He said that nothing has been done for 10 years. However, I should politely remind him that for six of those 10 years when no review took place we had a Socialist Government. The Government are looking at this matter for the first time for a very long time, so credit should be given for that.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the method of presentation. I do not accept that criticism. At least we are doing something. Something is being presented which was not done in years gone by.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned amenity—rightly so—the Stockholm Conference, and so on. Here, again for the first time, the Government are looking at this matter with some views on amenity.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about recreation—rightly so. If he looks at Forestry Policy, paragraph 21, he will see that we talk about recreation. Indeed, this is a consultative document. This is a time for looking at the whole future of forestry. In these discussions people will mention the EEC, just as the hon. Gentleman did. Therefore, I think he should give credit to the Government for taking the matter seriously, for consulting people, and, after 25 years, for looking at it, while the Socialist Government virtually did nothing about it at all.
I welcome the opportunity and the initiative that the hon. Gentleman has taken in mounting this debate, particularly on some aspects of it. Admittedly, it might be a little premature—I do not wish to appear rude when I say it is premature—when one has in mind that all the views which the Ministers responsible for forestry have invited from the organisations interested in forestry have not yet been received, or have not yet been received in a fully considered and final form. The Ministers concerned have therefore not yet had a chance to look at the whole range of opinion on this subject, as they will clearly wish to do before coming to any final conclusions. I believe it is important that we should wait until we have all these views. They should be looked at carefully before we reach any final conclusions. We have already had useful discussions, and I am sure that these will continue.
Indeed, to a great extent the answers to the hon. Gentleman already lie in the views which the Government have at this stage expressed in the consultative document or in the supporting cost-benefit study which was carried out by a team of economists drawn from the Government Departments concerned. In the latter context, we are aware that a great deal of criticism has been directed against the cost-benefit study; but it must be remembered that we made it abundantly clear that the study did not provide the sole evidence on which we put forward our views for discussion. Indeed, the consultative document says that it should not, and has not, dictated the policy conclusions reached. That is important.
Parts of the study are controversial, but the Government will be ready to consider any reasoned criticisms of it which may be advanced. Of course there will be differences of opinion. That is inevitable, bearing in mind that any economic appraisal of the value of planting trees means making assumptions about conditions nearly half a century ahead. This is another problem of forestry, with its very long time scale, and it does not make useful forward economic thinking any easier.
The cost benefit study was intended to illustrate the problems for the Ministers concerned and, despite all the difficulties, it has done a useful job in this respect. At least people are talking. At least people are thinking about it. Certainly other cost benefits are being brought into the picture and a study is being made of them. This is true, and this is perhaps the main purpose of the exercise—to get people to look at this industry and see where it is going.
I come to the question of import saving. As part of the economic argument it is sometimes claimed that a major increase in afforestation would be justified in terms of import saving, but here again the time scale of forestry must come into the reckoning. It is a very long time scale, and it seems to me that it is difficult to justify afforestation purely from an import-saving angle.
There is another point, and that is supplies for industry. This is something about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, particularly the pulp factory in his constituency. From the point of view of supplies for industry, we again have to bear in mind the forestry facts as they really are. Trees planted today cannot realistically be regarded as a source of supply to wood-using industries for at least 25 years, and then only in the form of early thinnings. That is to say, it would be unrealistic to embark on a large programme of tree planting in the interests of new and immediate investment in manufacturing enterprises based on the use of home-grown timber.
None the less, the Government do not underestimate the assurance of continuing supplies in the longer term which existing industries can derive from the


continuation of planting on an appreciable scale. In the knowledge that planting is to continue these established industries can look ahead with more confidence to expansion in the long term; and no doubt in the same long term there will be scope for new industries to take advantage of the increased supplies of home-grown timber that will be available.
I do not think that there is much point in going into the problems and difficulties of, and indeed, the views of the hon. Gentleman on the proposed pulp factory in his constituency. We have looked at this very carefully, and we believe that it would be wrong to mislead people, to raise hopes too much, because we still do not think that there are the necessary supplies of timber. In fact, the estimates are just not realistic, and I believe that that is a key point. The hon. Gentleman may laugh about my robbing Peter to pay Paul. It would be very sad to do that and to raise hopes about employment when, in the long run, we could not provide the raw materials. It would be unfair to raise such hopes, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the point and accept it.
Creating employment is simply a question of striking the right balance between all the factors which have to be taken into account in framing future programmes of afforestation. A factor which has counted most strongly with the Government has been the value of afforestation in creating and maintaining stable employment in the more remote rural areas which are subject to depopulation. Neither the economic return from afforestation nor deferred import saving could in itself be decisive. On the other hand, weight can well be attached to the long-term prospect of continuing and increasing supplies of home-grown timber to industry.
In proposing a planting programme of 50,000 acres a year for the Forestry Commission, including restocking, we think we have struck something like the right balance. Again, this is the first time that a Government have looked at the position in this way in dealing with the problem of depopulation.
I think all would surely agree that afforestation clearly cannot be subsidised regardless of other claims on our resources. It is right to look at it, but at the same time we certainly do not intend it to languish. In the Government's view, the proposals in the consultative document are designed to provide a reasonable amount of afforestation and to reflect the contribution that it can make to the rural economy and the rural landscape, which I believe is very important. We think that a contribution on this sort of scale is in the national interest at the present time. In any event, whatever decisions may be reached in the light of our consultative document, we have proposed that the commission's planting and replanting programme should be reviewed every three years. There will thus be an opportunity for us to consider from time to time whether the objectives are being fulfilled.
Once again, therefore, I welcome the initiative of the hon. Member for Blyth in having this debate so that we can discuss these things and one can make plain what the Government are trying to do. I hope that what I said will go a long way to show clearly that the document is a consultative document. We await the views of all interested parties and then the Government can make up their mind, which will be in the interests not only of forestry but of amenity values and depopulation problems. I believe that this is right.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Twelve o'clock.